Yorick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:04 pm
Imagine if the car was invented today suddenly.
Would we want them powered by diesel or leccy?
Very good angle.
If your starting point is that there is no existing petrol supply infrastructure, you'd have to be insane to suggest putting a huge vat of extremely flammable liquid on every street corner, and letting the general public have access to it.
Petrol has one thing going for it....its EXTREMELY energy dense. 10 times more than TNT.
That means you can transfer a lot of energy into a vehicle in a short amount of time and it doesn't take up much space. In almost every other way petrol is pants, its entire success is pretty much built on that one property.
If you look at any application where its possible to supply electricity easily (trains for example) you'll find electric motors way more often than piston engines.
Rockburner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:22 pm
Not sure about the chain drive - but it's a cheap and serviceable solution, albeit adding to the maintenance costs - given that the initial drive to the reduction gearbox is by belt, why not have a belt drive to the rear?
Thought the same!
I guess they decided they can get away with a 40hp wide belt within the body of the bike, but not down to the wheel? Seems like it should have been possible though, as buell managed to get belts to work with a few more than 40hp.
A_morti wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:43 pm
Thought the same!
I guess they decided they can get away with a 40hp wide belt within the body of the bike, but not down to the wheel? Seems like it should have been possible though, as buell managed to get belts to work with a few more than 40hp.
Whysub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:55 am
I tried a Zero and really liked it BUT I was one of those that rode more than 20 miles a day (120 miles a day). As most of that was motorway and dual carriageway, it would have drained the battery as there would be little or no regenerative braking on the commute. Would have to charge it twice a day, once at work and overnight at home. Otherwise I would have bought one.
Absolutely no doubt that in the next nine years will see huge leaps forward in battery technology, which will of course mean range increases. I remember the first Zero's had a 10 mile range.
I'm out in the sticks now, so when I do use my bikes and car, I do cover a decent mileage, so would always have range anxiety.
What would have been the issue with charging at work? (I suppose it depends on what you do and where you are based)
One of the garages at work has no electricity. I am sure that if I connected up in the other garage someone from estates office would have banned me from doing so. After all, they dont pay for fuel for my colleagues bikes.
The final drive will be higher torque than the initial reduction, it's probably also narrower. For those two reasons a chain would probably package better.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:51 pm
The final drive will be higher torque than the initial reduction, it's probably also narrower. For those two reasons a chain would probably package better.
Ofc, less speed=more torque.
If you can have a no mess minimal maintenance belt inside the bike where it's hard to get at to maintain or change, then the chain on the outside is excusable.
For anyone who can't accept a chain, niu has plenty of electric scooters to offer
Yorick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:04 pm
Imagine if the car was invented today suddenly.
Would we want them powered by diesel or leccy?
Very good angle.
If your starting point is that there is no existing petrol supply infrastructure, you'd have to be insane to suggest putting a huge vat of extremely flammable liquid on every street corner, and letting the general public have access to it.
Petrol has one thing going for it....its EXTREMELY energy dense. 10 times more than TNT.
That means you can transfer a lot of energy into a vehicle in a short amount of time and it doesn't take up much space. In almost every other way petrol is pants, its entire success is pretty much built on that one property.
If you look at any application where its possible to supply electricity easily (trains for example) you'll find electric motors way more often than piston engines.
Don't a lot of trains have a generator powered by diesel to provide the electric for the motors
Only where there is no overhead power etc. Why do you think they always put electricity in new trainlines and why electrification of existing lines is so popular?
They also have trains which can run on either, they will use electricity if its available cause it is so much cheaper.
That means you can transfer a lot of energy into a vehicle in a short amount of time and it doesn't take up much space. In almost every other way petrol is pants, its entire success is pretty much built on that one property.
and that is the magic property that the world is looking for.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:08 pm
Only where there is no overhead power etc. Why do you think they always put electricity in new trainlines and why electrification of existing lines is so popular?
They also have trains which can run on either, they will use electricity if its available cause it is so much cheaper.
I was a Commisioning engineer on dual voltage electric trains for years, there’s still plenty of diesel electrics though but hopefully gone in a few years....
Loads of the UK is still diesel electric innit, they've been on about Electrifying certain mainlines for years haven't they? New high speed is almost universally electric though.
