Why don't they do the standard City and Highway driving profiles that United Nations has endorsed and what the stickers on cars use to show fuel economy and Star Ratings.

"UN ECE Regulation 101 as the test
for determining these values for the label."

UNECE Regulation No. 101 - Rev.2 - Amend.3

Try and get this data from any other manufacturer... ...
...
...

Your data is lacking elevation detail.

This has it:
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/range/zero-s-2010/range-highway.php

Why don't they do the standard City and Highway driving profiles that United Nations has endorsed and what the stickers on cars use to show fuel economy and Star Ratings.

"UN ECE Regulation 101 as the test
for determining these values for the label."

UNECE Regulation No. 101 - Rev.2 - Amend.3

We aim to begin using the EPA Urban and Highway driving profiles. To do this accurately one needs access to a load based dyno (not a simple inertia dyno). You need a dyno because you can't recreate the test scenario on public roads - you might be able to do it on a big enough private track but a dyno will be more repeatable. You need a load based dyno to be able to simulate different loads on the engine rather than just the acceleration load (which is all an inertia dyno can really give you). We have an inertia dyno and will be upgrading it to a load based one in the next couple of months (we're building our own because a load based dyno is about $50K).

I imagine a Dyno able to run for long times at load would be expensive if it is a calibrated reliable instrument.
It's also expensive for a reason, and that is it took a lot of time to make the design right.

Problem is though, it would be even harder to find one that suites EV use where you need to include Regen Braking to produce your best Wh/mile (km/W)

How much would it cost to put it on someone elses dyno that can do the job.

A frame with a calibrated motor and load/grid-link and computer with data acquisition and specialised software suite is a big job.
Then get it calibrated, every month.

I think you should work hard at looking for automotive test lab load dyno. What do they test Hybrids on?
How long did it take to get the enertia dyno working correctly with calibrated results?

Sorry this all sounds proprietary info that i don't expect you to divulge.
I hope you keep pushing through and refine your scooter products to be affordable reliable products.

After considering how the Oil-Burner industry has been about releasing their CO2 and fuel economy ratings,
and all the crap about EV's being worse than Hybrids (please no-one reply about this here), I understand that you want to keep information internal till you know its release wont be turned upside down by media spin.

You have a new product that is breaking new ground, I hope to get to ride one in Australia... Mayte

Oh the main thing about the elevation data on the Zero motorcycle site is it was basically flat. Not a Dodgy down hill run.
So if that's important wind and humidity and air pressure would also be relevant.

An EV would go very wheel on a proving ground at 5000feet, much less air to push out of the way and motor not choked by limited oxygen.

It would also be helpful to know How the range is effected by load weight, a pillion passenger or a couple of slabs/cartons of beer (or both after a hot night out) might not make it home.
I had a lot of fun on my first step electric scooter with my girlfriend.

How does a load dyno dynamically simulate air resistance.

So what concerns me do you need to build a wind tunnel too. Sorry it just gets a bit ridiculous.
Better you than me (Ozzie joke, I'm just jealous).
[Edit typos]

...
..
It would also be helpful to know How the range is effected by load weight, a pillion passenger or a couple of slabs/cartons of beer (or both after a hot night out) might not make it home.

Yeah! That's the worst case scenario...we need detailed test reports including photos for that, pleeeease! ROTFLMAO

On a more serious note, I think that CuMoCo needs to bring their product to market in the best shape they can. Calibration, to allow comparison with other products, is a secondary consideration.

Therefore, and in the light of the enormous cost for calibrated dynos, I would suggest to build a dyno that is precise but not accurate.

See this to aid understanding of the difference between the two: http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/data/acc-prec.htm

A precise dyno that gives repeatable results should allow to tweak the CuMoCo scooters to the maximum of their performance capabilities, at a fraction of the cost for a precise and accurate dyno. It will, in other words, allow to achieve the best possible performance (compared to itself only), but without the ability to compare to other scooters/vehicles from other companies.

Then we improve them with the dyno (and after that the wind tunnel!)

Man, if you get a wind tunnel, I'm quitting my job here and going to work for CuMoCo! Because the next project will clearly be an aerodynamic fairing a la Craig Vetter's work. And that will be just way too cool. :)

As for range data, as soon as I get my bike back from the retrofit, I should be able to record some tracks around my hills here, in suburban Atlanta traffic, and keep track of the power consumed in the recharge. I'd love to see a good estimate of wh/mile calculated under various conditions. I think I can upload a google maps track from my gps, so people can verify the trip conditions.

The downside of my computation is that measuring power going to the charger isn't exactly the same as measuring power going into the batteries. There's inefficiency in the charger itself, and the balancing mechanism of the BMS involves power shuts on the full cells, which equates to wasted power if your pack isn't balanced. The CuMoCo guys will have a better instrumentation setup than I will, but won't have the same traffic and hills I do. But my values should roughly confirm what CuMoCo is getting, or at least provide a better estimate of the range of possible values.

I haven't been able to do this properly before now, because one of the minor glitches in the pre-release hardware was that the charger didn't shut off cleanly when the charge was complete, so I never knew exactly when the battery reached the full point.

How does the range compare to the VX-1, 20% more 50% more?

John,

Your test results were on a very flat course. I know you would have to travel a bit, but do you have any test data from a hilly area - say at least 500 feet local relief and 8 to 20% grades?

Glad to read what CMoC is doing with range testing, etc! Coincidentally just prior to reading the forum I sent an email to CNN "THE BIG I" and suggested they feature CMoC on a segment. Guess we'll see if they think you guys are interesting enough! Keep up the great work. I continue to believe you guys are going to provide the best electric cycle experience to those in the USA as well as beyond!

Gus
Florida

How does the range compare to the VX-1, 20% more 50% more?

About 67% more. Vectrix has a real world range of about 30 miles and the C130 has a real world range of 50 miles (50 / 30 = 1.67 = 67% bigger)

Or, if you prefer, look at the size of the battery packs:

VX-1: 3.7 kWh of NiMH
C130: 5.76 kWh of LiFePO4

5.76 / 3.7 = 1.56 = 56% bigger battery pack. However, our bike is also about 100 lbs lighter than the VX-1. Hence we use less energy and get more range than a straight comparison of pack sizes.

We're currently selling the C130 for $5,999 (that's $2000 less than the 2011 MSRP) as part of our test pilot program: http://www.currentmotor.com/test-pilot-program/

John, bless you for keeping on with the sales message! Well done! The truth is, unlike ICE vehicles, there is not common standard for EV's.

It's time a simple and staightford formula was devised so that Joe Public can easily desatinguish what he is paying for.

Paul - we've done some hill climbing testing in Cincinnati, OH with good results.

If you were looking for hilly urban terrain for testing, You should have come to Pittsburgh - it's a bit closer than Cincinnati too.

This one is 32 percent:

http://tinyurl.com/6clperv

I'm not quite sure if you were implying I was BS'ing about range? However, I wanted to capture a "state of the market" in preparation for figuring out how to create such a formula as you suggest.

When Current Motor has its ducks in a row it's a priority for us to "cut the BS" and get some "real world range" figures for a range of bikes from an independent tester.

I certainly wasn't implying that you were BS'ing about the range! You seem to have mistaken my lighthearted compliment on your enthusiasm for your product. We are in furious agreement about the urgent need for a formula that is easily consumer friendly to compare the performance of EV's.

...
...
We are in furious agreement about the urgent need for a formula that is easily consumer friendly to compare the performance of EV's.

Matthew (long time no see) summed the general rule up very eloquently: Half of the advertised EV range is the optimistic upper limit of the real world range. Not quite an industry standard, but it has been a reliable consumer tool! HAHA!

Wow - my ZEV 6100 must be the most efficient highway capable maxi-scooter around.

Using the above data John provided, a C130 used 115watts/mile: 4046w/35.2miles on a trip with an avg speed of 31.4mph and max speed of 66.6 mph. Check out my numbers below on a highway/town trip that climbs 800 feet in elevation through the front range foothills along the base of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.

Round trip route from West Arvada near 66th Ave & Hwy 93 to Boulder, Co. Elevation change 800 feet: start ~5600', peak ~6200', destination ~5400', shopping, then return same route to start.

Measurements taken without any regen braking and with 165lb, 5'9" rider, with moderate wind (10-20mph), as seen from the battery using a Cycle Analyst with their shunt and GPS verified speed/mileage data. At end of trip, motor cool enough to touch for one-two seconds but uncomfortable to leave hand on it.

Trip 1
W/mile 78.6, 36.4 miles, max speed 63.6, avg speed 35.5

Trip 2
W/mile 78.0, 42.2 miles, max speed 60.4, avg speed 33.8

Both trips have an avg speed that's higher than the C130 test run. So lets use 78w/mile on the ZEV6100, since it was closest to the avg speed of the C130 test, and compare that to the 115w/mile of the C130. The 6100 is 47.4% more efficient.
78*1.474=115. C130 required 47.5% more power to go same distance.

Wow!! And those trips were done with a heavy hand (similar to lead foot) : )

When attempting to be conservative in my riding, I typically get (61-64w)/mile on trips with an avg speed of 25-29mph. Now, elsewhere I have seen CUMCO reference 90w/mile on the C130. So comparing my w/mile when I am more serious about throttle use and their 90w/mile, it still comes out that the C130 requires 45% more power than the ZEV 6100: 90/62=1.452 still very similar to the above high speed runs.

Regen? - would needs an extra 5% regen when the motor is this efficient!!

Trying to compare against a VX-1, I only found one mention of w/mile. That was on this thread and the comment was from israndy:
http://visforvoltage.org/forum/11082-vectrix-vx-1-benchmarks
He mentions: 20.3 miles, 3280watts or 161 w/mile. But that is at the Killawatt meter - I am assuming. So let's assume the charger is only 85% efficient, that would be ~137w/mile (Yikes!!) Even with the ZEV 6100 at 78w/mile the Vx-1 requires 76% more power than the 6100 to go the same distance?? I hope it isn't that inefficient. Vx-1 owners, please post your W/mile.

I must say, I'm one happy ZEV 6100 owner!

I'd go further and say that any comparison in outdoor environments is flawed due to variations in weather, wind, and general atmosphere. To get a really accurate comparison, one would need "new" battery packs charged to the same "full" capacity by an independent electrical lab, (for complete impartiality) and then lock the bikes to a computerized dynomometer to guarantee the identical conditions. To further complicate these comparisons, one could argue that a rendom sample of 3 of each different bike model be used to prove it wasnt a fluke.

Vx-1 owners, please post your W/mile.

My Vectrix used an average of 100wh/km (160wh/mile) measured at the powerpoint when nimh
that was an average over 10'000km, mostly at top speed

On LiFePO4 it uses an average of 72.6wh/km (116.2wh/mile) measured at the power point.
That average is over the past 20'000km

Measured at the battery (in this case it is the same for both nimh and lithium):
93.75wh/km @ 100kmh (150wh/mile at 62mph)
53.5wh/km @ 60kmh (85.6wh/mile at 37mph)

My last commute was 72.2km, used 39Ah @ 140v nominal, or 5412Wh from the battery and 6.4kwh from the powerpoint.
speed was 115kmh (70mph) continuous for 45km, and 80kmh (50mph) for the remaining 17km.
So that was 75wh/km or 120wh/mile at the battery
88.6wh/km or 141wh/mile at the powerpoint

Having a big heavy bike that goes fast continuously is rather energy intensive unfortunately
smaller is better if you don't spend much time on the highway

The Roehr supersport uses even more, though to be fair it is 3x more powerful again as a Vectrix (and 4.5x more powerful than a zev 6100)

How does the zev 6100 do at 70mph? is it affected by hills much?

When one of my colleagues went to test out zev scooters, they reported the acceleration was underwhelming.
Although that may have been because I had spoilt them with an xm-5000 with a 400A 72v controller, and 70Ah CALB batteries.
btw - bigger controller is the best mod ever, really helps when splitting.

Matt

I'd go further and say that any comparison in outdoor environments is flawed due to variations in weather, wind, and general atmosphere.

Yup, the big difference here being one test was run at about 700 feet MSL and the other at 5800 feet MSL.

But also, my impression is that the platform that Current uses isn't the cleanest from an aerodynamic point of view. The C1x body is a Suzuki Burgman knock-off with a big "bass-mouth" behind to front wheel to accommodate the radiator for a water-cooled IC engine it was originally designed for - plus it has a big windshield and fairing. It is very comfortable to ride and the fairing and windshield even deflects most rain from the rider. but I think there is a aerodynamic penalty. One does hear a lot of wind noise from that bass-mouth and windshield on a ride.

I will hazard a very rough guess of the KWH/Mile I have gotten on my C124. I went on a couple days of trips without charging - until the first charge warning just went on. The result was 45 miles on this charge cycle. Speed was up to 50 mph, but the average in my suburban to urban riding was a bit less about 30 mph. The riding terrain is rolling-hilly with an elevation range of 700 feet to 1350 feet msl. The low-level regen is used a lot on downhill coasts with high-level regen used on steeper back streets. Riding style typical W. Pennsylvanian - slow and conservative. Rider weight 190 lbs/ 86 kg. Assuming that 80% capacity is used from the 60AH pack when the warning light comes on (that correct John?), and average voltage was about 76 volts, I achieved 81 WH per mile or 50 WH per km.

Just to clarify, I believe that you mean watt-hours per mile.