Ducati Monster Forum

I've seen a lot of press lately on electric motorcycles, and frankly, I don't get it.

Aside from the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (about which you can color me skeptical), what's the appeal?

Let me put it like this: If AGW didn't exist, AND no one had even heard the phrase Global Warming, why would anyone be interested in an electric motorcycle?

Also, who here IS interested in electric motorcycles?

PLEASE NOTE: AGW is a hotly contentious subject, and I hate politics etc. in this forum.  This is NOT a post about the pros and cons of the AGW theories.  Please focuse on the subject of electric motorcycles for their own sake without bringing AGW into it.

Thanks,
Nordog

I wouldn't mind an electric car or motorcycle. To me the key is similar performance and range to a non-electric.

I started a long reasoning behind it (nothing to do to AGW) but felt a simple answer is easier. I like the idea of electric vehicles.

I would like to have something electric, but if it made my utility bill get crazy higher, that would completely suck.  I'd have to try the electric and compare it to having a gas powered bike to decide which was better.  All in all, if I could get one that looked and sounded just as cool as my gas-bike while being operable for a comparable cost, I'd be down to give it a try.

In the early nineties I used to do electric conversions of vehicles. Alot of people are just interested in the technology, and the ease of use as a plug into the wall commuter. Also, oil reserves are shrinking...quickly. We need altgernative fuel vehicles soon. Personally, I am more interested in Algae Biodiesel. Very renewable, and can coencide with reclaiming waste water and making it useable. But certainly we will need more options than just that in the future. Also, if more people drove electric, that save more of the ever dimineshing fuel for us and our bikes.

Guess I should have addede "Peak Oil" to "AGW".

I'm interested in why anyone here likes electric bikes simply because of the bike itself.

Technological Gee Whiz Factor certainly counts, but if they become common place the TGWF dies.  I'm old enough to remember when EFI had a TGWF, now, not so much.  Heck, I remember when bikes with DISK BRAKES was stunning!

iamhybirs wrote: "in all, if I could get one that looked and sounded just as cool as my gas-bike while being operable for a comparable cost, I'd be down to give it a try."

Well, that's the thing.  Maybe I'm wrong, but electric bikes DON'T make a sound at all, let alone a sound like a V Twin, or Inline Four liter bike.

For me, the sound and feel of a bike that comes from its engine configuration plays a very big role in what kind of bike I like.

I've owned an Inline Four and loved it, but there something about a V Twin that I love more, thus my owner ship of Ducatis and HDs.

Seems once the coolness factor of the technology is gone, the bike becomes, well, almost sterile in its character.

The TT electric race is good indication electric bikes will eventually be exciting bikes. imagine full electric race bike series. with mainstream manufacturers supporting and supplying bikes.. fun stuff.

I'm interested in them, in part for the alt fuel aspect, in part for just another way to get around.  Electric powered vehicles can be thrilling, it's a different kind of power delivery.  I built a small electric bike from scratch that had a 50 MPH top speed, ~30 mile range, and would spin the rear wheel almost on demand.  It was fun....and dangerous.  [evil]   I had dreams of riding a full size and fast electric motorcycle, flying through canyons in almost complete silence save for the squealing tires and stress on the chassis.  And in hope that enough people ride/drive efficient vehicles in the future that I could still wheel out my old classic 2007 dino-fuel burning, open piped, computer controlled fuel injected Ducati.  :)

I forgot to state: They are FUN!! We had built an electric scooter that would do donuts with ease. Remember electric motors produce peak torque at ZERO RPM. They can be very fun tire melters.

In some parts of the country electric motorcycle = coal-burning motorcycle.  The advantage is you can point at the "zero emissions" vehicle while conveniently ignoring the smokestacks 50 miles away.  Out of sight = out of mind.  In other parts of the country electric motorcycle = nuclear powered motorcycle :)  and then there are the natural gas fired power plants. 

This is true,

but in the end it's the consumer that drives all of this.
If everyone went out and put a windmill and solar panels are their house. every new construction was built with solar and wind power and not even hooked to the power grid, how long do you think these polluting power sources would continue.

to me it's a matter of us finding better technology that can do the job without raping the planet.

Yep...and there are newer technologies such as biomass gasifacation which can produce fuel to run power plants. Syndiesel can also be made through this process. And the good news is that any organic material can be gasified, IE: waste paper, tree clipings, leaves even animal and human waste. We have piles of potential fuel just going to waste at present. Personally, I would rather go with a Syndiesel Turbo motorcycle. Some people are building them with small chinese diesels, but I prefere this: http://www.hdtusa.com/vehicle-m1030-m2.php (http://www.hdtusa.com/vehicle-m1030-m2.php)

Or this: http://www.neander-motorcycles.com/shortversion-neu/main_en.html (http://www.neander-motorcycles.com/shortversion-neu/main_en.html)

friend of mine is working on a hydrogen powered vehicle.
there are so many new ideas out there, people just need to find the big corporation backing to make it happen.

Having full torque all the time from an electric motor would be totally cool.
The move to alternative fuels is constantly progressing, and I'm sure we will see very exciting bikes that don't run on gasoline.  
There's really not much we can do right now, though, other than express interest.  I, for one, am not going to mod my Duc to make it burn spent french fry oil.  That's what frustrates me.  I'm sure the alternative vehicles will be great, but the process of commercializing them is slow and expensive.  For now all we pretty much can do is... [popcorn]

I did a few years of R&D on hydrogen PEM fuel cell vehicles and have a lot of faith in them.  They seriously kick major butt. [thumbsup]  Talk about LOTS of electrical power!!!

That concepts my big beef with the Prius, well any of the Hybrids. Wired did a tongue in cheek 'go green' issue a little bit back. They pointed out that it takes a whopping 113 MILLION BTUs to build a Prius. The article noted that if you really wanted to be green, you'd get a used, but well maintained geo metro. Buying used means zero 'carbon' on you soul for the acquisition  and the geo metro (if in good shape) has better mileage numbers than a Prius... But, who the hell wants a metro...

I've always thought fuel cell tech was cool, but I'm concerned about getting in a crash with a tank of hydrogen pressurized at 10,000 psi.  Heck, at that pressure, even a tank of inert gas like Nitrogen could take out a building if it ruptured.  If such a tank filled with Hydrogen ruptures and there's any kind of spark in a collision, wow, that would be quite a fire ball added to the carnage caused by the mechanical/pneumatic energy released.

It would be like Death Race 2000 meets The Hindenburg.

This is also interesting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707847.stm# (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707847.stm#)

Yea...the prius sucks. And, any old diesel like my MB 300SD can run on biodiesel which basically cancels out its own CO2 emmissions by the life cycle of the plant that produces the oil(soybeans currently). There are current and old VW diesels getting @50mpg readily available. If you can imaging what a small percentage of the plant is actually useable oil compared to the photosynthesis potential of the entire plant, burning that oil produces far less CO2 than the plant uses during it's life cycle. However, I think using a food source for fuel is a big no no since people are starving in many areas of the planet. I think of it as a stepping stone to algae biodiesel. 1 acre of algae can produce 20 times more biodiesel than soy. I think all of the alt fuel ideas are useable. There is no magic fuel which will replace all fosil fuels, it will be an accumulation of different fuels in the future.

heard about some experimentation with CF tanks that solve some of that problem.

I actually think they make more sense than electric cars. Motorcycles are short distance machines for most people. They're rarely someone's primary vehicle, and thus less less likely to be needed for a multitude of duties.

I wouldn't mind having one for commuting back and forth to work as long as it was fairly cheap (<$5K) and could do 75 mph and go 75 miles or more on a charge.

I'm interested in them for a few reasons:

Power delivery. You can modulate an electric engine to give you power pulses like a single when it's leaned over and then smooth delivery when it's upright.

Hybrid / Regenerative braking. If designed correctly you could up the power delivery over a conventional engine.

2 wheel drive. Again, if designed correctly you could have motors powering both wheels. And again, you could have some really interesting traction control options.

We're nowhere near getting this kind of tech on bikes, but it takes baby steps to get there. And these early attempt are just the start.

I'd love to commute to work on an electric bike to save money. On the weekends and trackdays, I'll stick to my dinobike and dinocar.

I thought an interesting quote in the recent "green" issue of Motorcyclist about the IoM TTX was when the author asked a bunch of bikers in a pub after the race if they'd ride an electric bike and the response was "If its fast, Yes!"

I bet that in five years or so, we'll see some pretty good examples of electric sport bikes, with performance within 10% to 15% of comparable ICE motorcycles. At least electric designs don't have to also invent suspension and tire tech as well.

Also the MotoCysz concept of quick change replacable battery packs looks like a winner. Why wait for 2-3 hours for a recharge when you could change battery packs in minutes (or less).

Buying into the technology now by others helps the future development and refinement of electric vehicle technology in the future. If people continue to buy into electric vehicles, the technology can only get better, greener, faster, etc.
Oh yeah, and I'm all for lowering dependency on oil.  [coffee]

Peak oil is B/S the US A has huge reserves and the Saudis have only tapped the firt 25% of theirs in 50 years of production. 
The whole climate change thing is a massive con the world was much warmer in Roman times they grew grapes in Scotland and Northern England ,, and in 14th century Europe the average temperature was  much higher than now and they had no cars ,dirty coal etc . there was a mini ice age in the 17th and 18th century Rurope was up to 5c cooler these are natural cycles.

Its just politicians and the commitee to make you live on your knees bleeding heart liberal scientists  who push this drivel.
Financial times showed recently how Al Gore has made $2 Billion out of trading carbon credits that he advocated.

jerry the Monmsterman

Tech, not politics Jer. Stay on target red 3

Actually, the fuel cell vehicle R&D I was involved in was specifically targeting optimized solid state hydrogen storage.  This eliminates the 2,000/5,000/10,000psi tanks needed to hold the fuel and instead stores it in a solid material that can absorb the hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water.  Totally reversible and totally inert (not going to explode).
Hydrogen tanks are a start to get fuel cells up and running, but nobody in the field expects them to be the long term solution.
The downside to the solid state method of storage is that the cost of production of these solids is high and they tend to be relatively heavy.  SOTA materials include LaNi5, TiFe and Mg2Ni.  NASA has been using alkaline and PEM fuel cells with LaNi5 storage media to power the orbiter in space since the 70's.
The basic premise is to "crack" 2 H2O-->2 H2 + O2 then store the H2 (and maybe the O2 as well unless you are on earth where there is plenty of O2 in ambient air), which requires energy to be put in (could be solar, wind, dino-fuel, coal, etc...).  When electrical power is needed, feed some of the stored H2 into the fuel cell which converts 2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O and energy is released in the form of electricity.  Beautiful design conceptualized back in the freaking late 1800's.
I just have to say it to avoid people asking why this technology is not in place sooner...Obama cut the US hydrogen program when he came into office!!!!!!!!  Guess who was scrambling for a job last year?! ??? [bang] :'( [coffee]  Yes, that's right, he cut out the hydrogen program like a freaking tumor and probably laughed while he did it-all current funding cut and future funding eliminated.
OK, seriously, I'm not trying to derail, just pissy about the finite subject and had to mention why we DON'T see more and more of PEMFC/MFC technology popping up anymore.

^^^ very interesting.  It is getting kind of close to the political threadlock threshold though.  Maybe we should back off and go back to discussing the original topic. 

i like the electric vehicles for a couple of reasons.

mainly i like them because of the tech factor. i'm with monkey boy on his points, but i also like that it's quiet. it's easier to sneak around into places where drawing attn to yourself is a bad thing. (i'm thinking of offroad riding areas for the most part btw)


also, i know what goes into producing all the batteries and the frame and what happens when you need to discard the batteries. and i love telling enviro-freaks about it when they say how much better their hybrid is.  ;D
when i started commuting by bicycle a few years ago i got an aluminum frame for the same reason. yes i'm "1 less car" but it would take a lot of peddaling to actually offset what was done to produce my frame.

Personally, I think the main issue is that if you have an electric bike and you run out of battery, it's going to take a good while to recharge (>1hr) unlike simply filling a tank (which takes a minute or two).  Imagine wanting to leave work, but not being able to because the bike still needs to charge...that would suck.

Or imagine wifey needing you to run an errand or two on your way home from work that takes you outside of your mileage limit.  I live in Texas, aint nothing close in Texas.

Quick charging is something that is very near to happening now. The trick is that the batteries must be able to handle the greater current required. Litium Ion batteries can be quick charged, but there are no charging stations. The charger required would likely run  on 220V, so having the charger in the car wouldn't help most people. There needs to be a market for charging stations before it is economically feasable to do it. So, again, buying into the technology greatly reduces the wait time on newer technologies like charging stations.

This is why I think electric cars are crap, but a motorcycle pulls this sort of duty less, so it'd be slightly more viable

Quick charging and swappable batteries like the Czyst (sp?) would be nice.

Roskva

350 lbs, 94 bhp, top speed 112 mph, 40 - 60 miles range depending on battery spec/price.

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l394/stopintime/roskva.jpg)

Electric bikes (and cars, etc.) will suck as long as we have to use batteries to run them.  We have known for decades how to build an electric car that equals or exceeds an ICE vehicle in every aspect, except that it has a 1500lb "fuel tank" that holds 2 gallons of fuel and has to be refilled by an eyedropper for hours.  Lithium battery technology has brought that down to maybe a 500lb tank that holds that 2 gallons, but that's still an order of magnitude worse for energy storage than actual fuel is.

Making a quick-charge battery would solve half that problem and make them almost practical for a lot more people -- you still would have limited range (or massive weight) and have to fill up more often, but at least you wouldn't be stuck for hours wherever you ran out.

So the core problem is how to store electricity.  As WetDuc said below, solid state hydrogen storage is a good possiblity, especially if it can be made from something light like a CF nanotube matrix.  Until we get something like that, or otherwise improve our electricity storage technology by about 10 times, the electric vehicle will not be usefully competitive with our current tech except in a few specific and limited applications.

I think we should be pouring money into electricity storage research anyway.  We have several alternative and renewable ways already of generating electricity; most of them (solar, wind, tides, etc.) are impractical exactly because we can't store their output, and they only make electricity when their conditions are right, not on demand.  Our entire grid is run on demand, ramping electricity production up and down as needed, because we don't have anything that even resembles a technology for large scale mass storage of electricity.

Developing such a technology would make our existing system FAR more efficient and robust -- we could size the whole system for average need instead of peak need, and we could have a stockpile of electriity as backup in case of a plant going down or whatever.  It would also make many of our known alternative generation technologies far more practical, and make electric vehicles actually useful.  Why so few people are working on this, I have no idea.

So, to answer the original question -- no , I have no interest in electric bikes (or cars) unless and until they can store enough energy to be flexible and useful.  Until that happens, they are a fad -- toys with little practical value for solving our energy-related problems.

PhilB

I work 2.5 miles from my house. I "should" ride my bicycle but I don't. I take either my '88 F150 or my duc. I would like to have an electric motorcycle so I could charge it on work's dime.

That sounds like a reasonable application for that.  But then, how long would it take you to save enough doing that to pay for the vehicle?  Or to make up for the resources and pollution of its manufacture?  That's about a tank of gas a month for the Duc.  Less than $200 saved a year.  And you're registering and insuring an additional vehicle, which will eat up much of that savings right there.

This is the problem -- it's similar to when someone says he wants to buy a motorcycle to save money on gas compared to his car or truck.  When you run the actual numbers, the cost of running the additional vehicle almost never gets recovered; it usually only makes sense if the new vehicle is a *replacement* for an existing one.  So electric motorcycles (or cars) will make sense for very few people until they can be a genuine replacement for what most of us use now, and how we use them.

PhilB

Im definetly interested in electric bikes. Something tells me these electric motors will have much less service assoceiated with them.  Therefore, I assume less overall dealer maintenance costs.  It wont be going in for the 600 mile tune up for valves, etc etc. There wont be any oil changes. no gaskets. Nice smooth electric motor. No EFI, no spark plugs, no carborator, no fuel lines to corrode. No gas that goes bad over the winter.

Yea, im definetly interested in electric motorcycles.  Im sure it would be weird to ride a motorycle that makes no noise.  As much as we are not willing to admit it, half of riding a bike is about how it makes you feel. That sound and vibration is part of the visceral experience.

Im interested in electrics the say way I'm interested in nuclear powered vehicles.

If it can be done in a manner that is as cost effective, easy to use, and environmentally sound as an ICE, then why not?

Nothing is though.

[thumbsup] Agreed.  There are finite resources on this planet and the only species on the planet who is upsetting the natural order of things is man.  This is not up for debate.  It is a fact.

I am seriously interested in solar power for my house and I live in an ideal area to make this a worthwhile investment.  I have ridden a bicycle to work at various times throughout my life.  Being car free isn't really an option for me but fuel efficient vehicles definitely interest me.

Raping the planet?

Upsetting the natural order?

 [roll]

Back in the day,some people said they would never give up their horse for an ICE vehicle but with time came improvements and reliability.
 Most of you guys are looking at it from a street/distance perspective.
For an urban environment it makes sense.
Also for a MX/Trials  situation it would be ideal.You could have tracks/courses anywhere without the major complaint of noise.
  
 +1 on Phil's thoughts on "stockpiling" electricity.

Electrics in a purely urban environment can't hurt, but then again, their purpose is defeated in a place like Manhattan where there is a subway or bus stop every 100 yds.  (well, not the upper east side until 2014?).. 

Even though it helps with emissions etc, you still have the space and congestion issue in an urban environment. 

Moreover, can you imagine the taxi fleet in NYC going electric?  Most of those cars are operated for 16-20 hours at a time.  They do oil changes weekly.  That's where you'd get the biggest bang for the buck in maintenance and emissions, but there isn't room in the city to have a duplicated fleet while the batteries are charged.

Earth is just one big biosphere.  And yes, we do have an impact on it.

I think I remember reading there were over 100,000 electric cars operating in NYC in the early 1900's.(I could be wrong   [cheeky])

On the other hand, what is one of the most troublesome components on the vehicles you already have?  What is the biggest PITA and limiting factor right now with your phone, laptop, camera, watch, etc.?  Yep, the battery.

PhilB

It wasn't that many, but it was significant.  In the earliest days of the car, electrics and steam and gas were all competitive.  Electrics lost out pretty early, by about 1910, as gas and steam development improved them beyond what the electrics could do (yet again, batteries).  By the 1930s, steam cars had also lost out and become pretty much extinct.

PhilB

i wouldn't mind an electric motorcycle for the quiet and clean aspect (clean bike, not environment).  i like my hearing and don't necessarily like loud bikes.  not having to change oil would be nice too.

The license plate.

It's probably been stated before, but until three things can be worked out, I would never own an electric motorcycle. Price, driving range, and performance. Now there is the Brammo Empulse, that even has a transmission, that supposedly has comparable performance 0-100 as any superbike, I have yet to see the real performance stats. Honda was supposed to release their version of the electric superbike sometime this year, but haven't heard anything about that lately.

Someone earlier stated the real issue, battery life. My thought is that manufacturers need to consider using ultracapacitors with power limiters / conditioners between the batteries and the electric motors to provide raw acceleration, and then the steady power supply for regular driving would be provided by the batteries, with the capacitors as a pass-through. I like the idea of a gearbox for throttle control at different speed ranges, but this could be done electronically or though a multi range potentiaometer, so that there is no parasitic drag of moving parts (and the loss of mechanical advantage).

Shrug.  EV's will keep me employed well past retirement due to all of the natgas we'll be burning at our power stations?  [cheeky]

where I live deer are destroying the forest floor by over browsing the native plants and allowing the influx of non-native invasive species that have no natural feeders or predators. We used to have mountain lion to keep the deer population in check but their habitat got destroyed by to many people.

Maybe the earth would be better off if there were no humans, but then there would be no DMF and I couldn't be on the computer chatting with you people.

When firearms were in their infancy, some people thought that a rifled barrel was more accurate because the Devil was riding the bullet and telling it where to go. (no joke).

EVs will not save the planet, they are just the latest totem.  They aren't a bad idea if the issues listed above are worked out, they are just not a panacea to what ails us.  Nor are ICEs going to destroy the planet.  They have the same sorts of issues to work out that EVs do, the impact is just in a different place.

Humans have always impacted the world, as have volcanoes, dinosaurs, meteors and various animal and human diseases. None of that will ever change.

I honestly wouldnt mind an electric for 2 main reasons.....The pics are from the KTM Freeride Series.... not to shabby IMHO.

1. I would love to be able to ride where i want without major reprocussion..... I mean, i know plenty of places where ive been growing up where a combustion vehicle is a NO GO! I would love to be able to ride there..... plus they arent too heavy and would be a riot!
(http://plugbike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ktm-freeride-electric-mx.jpg)

2.  Wouldnt it be sooooo awesome to take something like this and sneak up on people on the walking/bicycling trails or paths without being heard?  You could play some wicked jokes on people!  On top of that you can take the shortest distance through a city without having to stop and go with traffic.  Let alone, how awesome would it be to randomly "sneak" through a mall or city center??

(http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201003/ktm-freeride-7_1600x0w.jpg)
(http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/265266/images/ktm-freeride.jpg)

Just do what BMW does and pump engine noise through speakers:

http://jalopnik.com/5843332/new-bmw-m5-fakes-its-engine-noise-for-your-pleasure (http://jalopnik.com/5843332/new-bmw-m5-fakes-its-engine-noise-for-your-pleasure)

(http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/ac51/rllout/7a639d21.jpg)

The correct question is "what if it's a big hoax and we've wasted tons of money, destroyed industries, or forced people to live differently for nothing?"

The assumption that efforts like EVs will "create a better world" is a belief, not a fact.  

Everyone wants healthy children.  

"Livable" cities?  That can go 50/50.  All cities decay and ultimately appeal to the herding instinct in some.  Cities grow and contract and planning for that kind of growth is an art.  Detroit anyone?

Rainforests?  Sure.  But bear in mind those places that have them are sovereign countries and can do what they want.  

"sustainability" is a nebulous concept and linked to a whole host of other "interesting" ideas.  By itself, there is nothing wrong with it and it is the way that many things are already done.  (i.e. cut a tree, plant two).  However, the way it is sold today is a political ideal, not a real thing.

Everyone wants clean water and air, but few people want to pay for it.  

"Green Jobs?"   [roll]


Like I said above, I am all for "alternative" powered vehicles -- electric, nuclear, coal, human fat harvested from liposuction... But it has to be better than what we've got now.  And so far, the horizon doesn't promise much.  EVs may or may not help in urban areas.  My experience is NYC and the subway there is far better than any car is -- less hassle, less pollution, less storage or maintenance woes.

Instead of EVs for cities, how about better mass transit?

I just thought it was funny, that's all. ;)

I wasn't trying to hug a tree or anything. My experience with EVs is limited to the Volt that snuck up behind me in a supermarket parking lot. I almost shit my pants. :o

I was at a mall yesterday and there was a Toyota event going on. Test drives in their new full plugin vehicle.



The thing was charging on a gas generator in the parking lot.  [laugh]

 [clap]

I wonder if they include the generator with the car...

and the generator was probably a Honda...

with some electrical tape over the label

I wonder how many miles per gallon that totally electric vehicle gets?

More planet raping with all those hydrocarbons killing polar bears.  Or something.

Most of us do not live in NYC. In fact there are few places in the U.S. with that kind of density. At this time I live in a city of 40K with a fairly low density. An electric PU or runabout could replace one of my vehicles (GMC Jimmy 17 MPG). I'm thinking of an Upsized one of these that has a cab and Heating / AC,  maybe a radio too. Of course electric would be great but maybe a small motorcycle engine would do. I would want AWD because of the snow. So I might put 10 miles a day on the thing running here and there.

(http://www.deere.com/common/media/images/product/gator_turf_vehicles/te/JD522464_1col_GT_642x462.png)

But I don't need an electric street bike. An off road one might be cool though.

Ha ha.  Liberuls...

OK, I'm out.

Gators are awesome. Have you looked at a Polaris ranger? A friend has one with a cab, he uses it to check his food plots. Also Bobcat has them now.

Not that one, but you do get a generator.  It's called an engine :P

Diesel power is the way to go.









A pair of dees'ill get you anywhere you need to go:

(http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm276/hlep2890/shoes.jpg)

Please tell us you took a picture.    [clap]

dont really care about global warming or the need to get away from oil nearly as much as the idea of progressing electronic motorcycles to the point that they can compete with gas powered bikes.

100% torque all the time and a top speed limited by battery life....

I dont care what your politics are, thats cool. so is this;
(http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/bown_article_image_550w/articles/motoczysz.jpg)

thats the motoczysz Ep1c, about 8 guys building a better bike every year for the last 3 years. theyve won all but the first year and killed it  this year (against honda-mugen no less ) with a 104mph lap record.  it took combustion engines 53 years to do what electric bikes have developed in 4.  its not surprising to here that kawasaki is also developing an electric TT bike.
and then there is this;
(http://images.motofan.com/G/8/2/5/rhyno-moto-de-una-rueda_fs_14252.jpg)

If I cant have a hover car then i suppose a single wheel electric motorcycle will have to do.


its absolutely not ready to "replace" ( i use quotes because I think its silly to think it has to be one or the other) but in the next 10 years or so?  probably.  I think Michael Czysz said it would only take a battery with something like 8X current levels in order to have a bike competitive with MotoGP level bikes.  now THAT would be a race to see!

Those are excellent points.

However I was told that we would all be on the metric system by 1978 and have Jet packs by 1999. Where's my jet pack?

you had it, it flew over Disneyland in 1966 and then people were bored with it. ;D

but more to the point, imagine if a privateer designed a jetpack that did something only planes had done. say, first it flew the english channel, then it flew accross the US, and then it flew across the atlantic. imagine that those leaps had occurred in 3 years and that by the fourth year boeing and lockheed martin decided to take notice and spend some serious money developing there own jetpacks....

thats basically whats happening in the electric motorcycle world.  10 years ago the idea that an electric motorcycle would be raced in any sort of athletic way was inconceivable, now they can hit 180mph  in under a mile and brake 100 avg at IOM.  this isnt some pie in the sky fantasy, they are advancing by leaps and bounds and with such consistency and fervor that the big guys are starting to take notice.   if czsyz does another ground up build to compete with the year 2 mugen bike, and kawasaki enters the fray you have 3 very serious electric bikes on the grid, and thats not even looking at the privateer outfits like zero, lightning and brammo.

that's a misleading assertion -- electric motors have been developed over the last 100 years.  applying that know-how to motorcycles piggybacks on the developments of ICE-based bikes. 

its not as if there are half a dozen styles of electric motor.  they are all basically the same thing, with minor differences for AC or DC. 

gas engines have wide differences in design.  electrics absolutely have an advantage due to simplicity.

What the hell do you call the things?

I've always referred to me monster and vette as "toys that go BANG." Elec bikes don't fit that descrip no more.

This.

Also note that the electric TT goes for one lap, and that's that.

PhilB

"Toys what go ZZZZAAAAP?"

Jacob's ladder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gztonho9Oy0#)

ask and you shall see.

One electric plug in car, being charged by a gas generator

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/293807_401735766549824_1803097218_n.jpg)

you make it sound like each bike is a standard chassis with a standard electric motor with a standard of stacking batteries.

each bike is running different drive systems, in different configerations.  they also have varying numbers and types of batteries and motors, some bikes "shift", some have regenerative braking, chassis design.. even the batteries themselves are different between bikes, varying not only in manufacture and material but also in the way they deliver that energy to the motor(s).

you wont find specifics on how different each bike is because those differences are all very closely guarded secrets. motoczsyz, for instance, uses the EP1C to show off their proprietary drive system, not to sell bikes.

Im not trying to claim that electric bikes are better because they are developing faster, or that they faced the same challenges as the early combustion bikes. I was more trying to show how quickly they've caught up. at the first TTGXP many bikes didnt make it to the starting line, of the ones that did few of them even finished.  and now 4 years later they've cracked the ton with a full grid.

I hear you, but a lot of that is piggybacking from automotive development -- also the fact that CAD for cars/bikes has changed exceptionally in the last 20 years -- even 25 years ago, cars were still being modeled manually.  Now, they can generate a 3d model in a computer and design everything virtually.

I am just saying the apparently quick time-to-field for electric bikes has more to do with stuff behind the scenes and have been able to borrow a LOT from prior art.  Almost all of motorcycling over the last 100 years has been "this is brand new, let's see how it works" (carbon fibre frame-less bike anyone?)

I'm too bored to read through the previous six pages.

Instant torque is a win!

In many cases, electrical power is less expensive than gas (excluding debates on coal vs. nuclear vs. hydro., etc).

You aren't missing much.

If they can eventually design an electric motorcycle that would have a light enough battery with a long charge for touring, I would definitely be in.

The idea of touring through......say the colorado rockies, making very little noise would enhance the beauty of the surroundings and the peacefulness for me.



maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm even getting starting to think the roadracing exhaust on my monster is much too loud

I put the baffles back in on my Monster. It runs better now too.

you would just fall asleep and run off the road... see?  quiet bikes = dangerous

There are really two main issues (in my opinion) with current technology and design of electric motorcycles.

First is the shape of the batteries. It seems that battery manufacturers think in squares and blocks. However fitting squares into motorcycle frames does not make efficient use of the space. It is for this reason that we do not see square engine blocks in ICE bikes. If batteries could be custom made from a bunch of smaller cells, and assembled in a honeycomb configuration, this would allow custom configurations and shapes.

The second issue is with the electric motor. The current philosophy assumes that the motor has to be under the seat of the bike, and have a chain to drive the rear wheel. This takes up valuable space for power cells. For this reason, a hub motor based either on a pancake motor or a rail motor would be more efficient use of space.

I put baffles into my RR exhaust aswell and it's taken it from 'drown out every harley on the road to barely tolerable'/

well it would certainly put my girlfrien to sleep more quickly. She can't stay awake on the back of my bike as it is now.

I guess im just not really concerned with how or why its happening then with the fact that its happening at all. I dont see how that part is relevant to whether or not electric motorcycles make sense.

am I reading you wrong? it reads to me like the E-bikes are somehow not earning what they have because theyve been able to take advantage of development in previous arenas. no matter how theyre doing it, its impressive and if they can garner the knowledge already being used to create an entirely new form propulsion and get it stable, competitive, durable and onto the street in consumer hands in under a decade then they deserve to be commended for that.

the bikes may seem like a silly waste of time by a bunch of green hippies now, but gurantee if they cracked that nut and you could have a 100% torque all the time, 180mph top speed, proper handling E-bike I think all the joking would die off pretty damn quick.

It would die off until the bike only goes one lap.. and then it would start up again, in earnest.

which is what I meant by "if they cracked the nut"

you really think that they're never going to be dead even with a combustion motor?

 ???

I think they are a silly waste of time, and I am as far as one can be from being a green hippie.

a waste of time done by some silly green hippies*

No.

Batteries are older than internal combustion and the last generations of batteries have been tiny increments.  Barring some miraculous discovery which somehow raises battery capacity by an order of magnitude without the concomitant weight, I don't see much changing.

Also, keep in mind battery heat.  They will ahve to figure a way to cool them as they are discharging.

I think it's more likely to see a hydrogen/electric hybrid -- no batteries, just a direct hydrogen-powered alternator to DC motor conversion

This.  Batteries suck, and are a dead end technology.  Electric bikes (and cars, and anything else that takes real power and is mobile, as well as solar or wind power or any other electrical generation method that can't be operated at will) will be practical when we develop an energy storage technology that compares or exceeds hydrocarbon fuels in energy density.  And not before.

PhilB

I'm thinking a small nuclear reactor should produce enough energy for the life of the bike...

Diesel locomotives have been hybrids for a long time.

Constant power generator going to an electric motor would be far more efficient than batteries.  Instead of stopping for 8 hours to recharge, you just swap a hydrogen cel.

battery tech is getting better all the time. smaller and higher capacity units are continually being developed and methods for faster charging are also taking place. the first czsyz bike had 10kwh  with 98V+, the 2011 bike (not the one that just competed, the generation just before that) put out 12.5kwh with 330v, it also weighed about 50lbs less and made in the neighborhood of 4X as much hp (200+).

more interesting than that though, is that the 2010 had the same kwh and V but only made about 125hp. clearly they are making advancements on the entire drive system, not just its motors and batteries.

im not actually a huge e-bike fan, but I acknowledge the serious advancements that are going on with them. As a general principal I hate hearing people brand bash one bike over another. Similarly, I think its stupid to hate on a new drive system that has only recently been heavily developed for this application.  its in its infancy and rather than being excited by the possibility of a new toy, everyone wants to shit all over it for not being the same as the old toys.

you cant really say what its potential is until the development stagnates a bit.  when you stop seeing hp and battery life advance multiples, and when big competitors start dropping out then maybe you can claim its plateaued. but not only is that not happening, nobody is even mentioning it. every year its a new bike that totally eclipses the old one, with a new bike in development set to do the same thing next year.

Oh okay, I get it.

Lets say we are on a long ride on a hot summer day... A few hundred miles into the ride, you'd be spending atleast about 4 hrs [with all your gear on] to charge back to full capacity with a booster charger.. while everybody else would have gassed up in 2 min and get going  [drink]

Development has totally stagnated.

How long does it take to recharge the batteries?

How much distance can you get out of a single charge?

It's great that they can swap out the electric motor for a different one at a different voltage and get higher speeds.  I bet if they try, they can get a 200 mph bike but it will only go 200 feet and then wait 8 hours to recharge for another 200 feet. (exaggerating of course)...

again, its not simply "swapping out an electric motor" an entire proprietary liquid cooled drive system. its not as simple as plugging an electric motor to a stack of batteries and shoving it in a race chassis.

distance is affected by speed, the bikes developed for IOM are developed to do 37 3/4 miles, each year the speeds go up because the power is greater. if the speeds stayed the same they would go further.  the electric drag bikes do 200mph in about 7 seconds. 

The only production "sport" e-bike I know of is the brammo empulse R. its a naked bike with a top speed of about 100mph, battery recharge time about 3 1/2 hours, range ~120 miles. that is a very reasonable bike for 90% of commuting riders who want an electric bike for the sake of having an electric bike.  the cost is high (14-16k) and in no way can it compete with a combustion bike that costs even half as much.  but as a first wave of tech you rather expect the cost to be unreasonably high.  they also are not producing bikes on any sort of major scale or being backed by a major corporation like a contender from honda or kawasaki would be, and until that happens any comparison is going to be stacked against them. 

All in all I think its way to early to tell whats going to happen to these bikes.  I think we should all just be excited as riders to live in a time that allows us to get to see it all unfold whatever way it will. 

I think you've explained it well, the problems still remain.

The redesigns of the motors, use of intelligent power systems,  implementation of lighter materials, etc have permitted the batteries to be used better and derived higher speeds and some more distance.

But it still takes 8 (?) hours to charge them and are impractical.

The e-bike that's going to change the game will have inwheel motors that are regerative, a composite frame with a fuel cell and battery combo for on the go fueling and storage of regenerative braking.

Battery tech is getting better, but not by anywhere near enough.  And further it can't, even in theory, get good enough.  Gains of 10% here and 15% there won't cut it, when to compete with fuel it needs to improve by about 900%.

Fuel cells could make it work, IF we can solve the problem of safely storing enough hydrogen in a small and light enough package.  It's the same problem, sort of, although I think it's more likely to be solvable in the long term.

PhilB

problem solved... a company is making bio-methanol fuel cells

You are basing your comment on old battery technology. Newer batteries with shorter recharge cycles are being developed every day. And who is to say that the manufacturers don't begin experimenting with ultra-capacitors, which can completely intake and discharge in seconds. It's just a matter of time.

supercapacitors were a direction I wanted to go when working with the Northern Arizona University Electric race car in 1995. We were using 20 gel cell batteries in a double serial-parallel setup. swapping the batteries after a couple of laps sucked. I wanted to setup a conductive charger to recharge the car just like a regular race pit stop.

ZAP... charged... go

Exactly. (Finally someone else understands) All you would need after the super or ultra capacitor is a variable voltage atenuator. Low voltage / high amperage for low end acceleration. High voltage / low amperage for high speed cruising.

throw in 400 lbs of batteries and bike that looks like a turd and you're in!

With ultracapacitors, you will not need batteries.

With flux capacitors you won't need ultra capacitors.  With alchemy you won't need gold. 

What are you drinking? And why are you not sharing with the rest of the forum? - Just kidding.

The reality is that modern ultra capacitors can store enough energy to almost rival current lithium battery technology. And they are lighter. The issue with them is the volatility and explosive nature, making them a safety risk. But when you think about it, sitting on three and a half gallons of extremely flammable fluid is not exactly safe either.

If you know of an instance in the last 100 years of someone's gas tank exploding, let me know.  The worst thing that I know of is leaks (which happened with the plastic tank deformation as well) but no fatalities.  ***EDIT>  I am referring both to motorcycles and on-road use.  Not cars and not racing, especially not non-homologated racing.

Moreover, NHTSA requires gas tanks to be crash proof.  IT can happen, but it doesn't often.

What provision can be made for explosive capacitaters?

Yes it is.  In real life, bikes (and other ICE vehicles) pretty much never explode.  And when they do, it's because they have been on fire for a while already.

I don't know a lot about ultra capacitors, but there are people who do, and I'm going to venture a wild guess that if that was the solution to this, easy as you say, someone would be doing that.  And that therefore there are good reasons why not.

One might be your own statement that "modern ultra capacitors can store enough energy to almost rival current lithium battery technology."  Since current lithium battery technology only holds about 10% of the energy that such vehicles need to hold to be practical, that's not nearly enough yet.

PhilB

Capacitors are built with regulators to keep them from completely expelling their energy at full rate. However if a unit is tampered with or damaged (let's say during an accident), then the complete discharge in milliseconds could occur. This would equate to the explosion or ignition of a gas tank during an accident. And while you pointed out that gas tanks are supposed to be "crash proof", one cannot completely protect a gas tank, even on a car nor can one predict the angle and trajectory of damaging force during an accident. The the possibility is always a clear and present danger.

So to your point, there is no silver bullet solution with any type of stored electricity, or stored energy for that matter.

My point was that gas tank explosions are exceptionally rare -- rare enough not to worry about.  Rare enough that in 30someodd years of riding, I've never heard of one.

It remains to be seen if an ultracapacitater tumbling down the tarmac will be as stable.

Interesting thread.  IMO, the electric car as a replacement for an ICE car or an electric bike as a replacement for a ICE bike for most people?  Clearly not.  But if you have the extra $ for one as a limited use vehicle?   Why not?

The best they got (IMO) when it comes to hybrid vehicles?  The type of bus they use in NYC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_bus)
Could we do similar with cars?  I think so.  It would still be a compromise, but everything is.

One possible solution to both battery charging and increasing usefulness:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place)
You still probably wouldn't do too well when it comes to commuting to and from your country home, but it could make a difference in town even though it doesn't solve the issue that batteries still suck and may not be so green if cradle to grave pollution is considered.

It wasn't that long ago when folk thought the automobile could never replace the horse and buggy or the train could replace the stage coach.

The Ford Pinto

they are no less safe as a Shorai battery.

I was referring to motorcycle tanks...


That's a question to be answered by empirical means.  NHTSA requires testing of each model year's tank design regardless of how safe it was the previous year or how minimal the change in design was.

Likewise, an EV bike would have to actually prove it is safe. 

Fortunately, the Chevy Volts spontaneously inflamed at NHTSA's parking lot before doing it on the road...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3802893/Bike-crash-results-in-huge-fireball.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3802893/Bike-crash-results-in-huge-fireball.html)

and of course the Guy Martin crash...

it happens

i know, it's just very rare

I don,t understand why there is so much "I don't like this, its stupid" thought regarding e-vehicles. If you don't like it, move on, thanks for stopping by. I would LOVE an e-bike for commuting to work. One would NEVER replace my "real" bike though, at this point it is just too impractical. But for running around town, hell yes!

My local Duc dealer carries the Zero line, now if they can get the price down a bit I would certainly consider one.

Not under those parameters because the bike would still be an expensive 'toy' i.e. track bike, which they'll be trailering to the track in an ICE gas guzzling truck.  The average day ride a weekend rider goes on around here is over 150 miles just for the ride itself and a person still needs to travel 20 miles to and from the meeting point.  The limiting factor for EV's is and will always be refueling time and range followed by purchase cost.

Who said they were stupid?

I would totally consider them if they were within price point and performance of gas powered bikes.  None of them are, nor will be any time soon and there is sufficient skepticism that they ever will be, barring some miraculous discovery in battery technology.

A hydrogen/electric hybrid with direct to voltage design is probably the only way to have a function EV.

Akira Yanagawa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnA7XV4kMUA#)

 ;D

I really should have clarified my comment, I meant both motorcycles and not racing.  Racing all bets are off.  Forks fly off and tanks go places they shouldn't and wheels and swingarms are pushed to their limits.

But yes, tanks can explode, thanks derb.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that EV bikes should not be tested for safety. Any and all EV's should pass the same, if not more rigorous safety standards. I think it is just a matter of time before battery manufacturers begin focusing on crash safety.

It's done to make old farts like you mad.   :P Opinions, that's what boards are about.   ;D
I for one would not buy anything electric EVER.   It's expensive and not worth itself paying off the difference in savings for about 7 years....on average.

6-7 years is just about the time when you will need to replace the batteries.

i knew that wasn't what you meant... just any excuse to post that yanagawa sequence.  ;D

As I said at the start, it's not an objection to electric vehicles per se.  Figure out a decent solution for energy storage and replenishment, and I'm fine.  I will, however, NEVER buy something powered from batteries.  Batteries suck.

Your bolded line is the key, though.  To make sense, fiscally OR ecologically, the electric vehicle must be able to *replace* an ICE vehicle.  If it's just additional, it doesn't save resources overall, or reduce pollution, or save money, or do anything else useful.  It becomes just another toy, and offers no benefit to our energy usage consumption and patterns.

PhilB

As Philb has said, EV will not be a practical replacement for ICE until the energy density of batteries comes close to that of liquid fuels. But that doesn't mean that folks should give up on them. Research, developement and testing needs to continue. Racing, especially at well known venues like IOM, is a great way to facilitate this through private means.

Interesting:

http://gas2.org/2012/07/16/67-pound-carbon-fiber-electric-motorcycle-revealed-in-norway/ (http://gas2.org/2012/07/16/67-pound-carbon-fiber-electric-motorcycle-revealed-in-norway/)

If it was true, it would be. (maybe without batteries/engine?)
Here's my post from back on page 3, that re-opened this thread
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=32508.msg1081396#msg1081396 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=32508.msg1081396#msg1081396)

Damn...I was worried about it being a re-post!  :P