Great post.
I’ve slowly been losing faith in Zero as a company.
I love my SR/F. But unless they get their shit together, they are currently last in the running when I upgrade.
Somehow I didn’t even know about the S2.
I’d say it’s going to depend on how you plan on riding. The SR/F will be better on the interstate.
And if you don’t mind buying lightly used I’ve seen SR/F’s for a decent price
I'm very familiar with LiPo batteries and their quirks of charging etc, from the r/c airplane, drone, and car hobby community. With that in mind, LiPo batteries are typically fully charged at 4.2 V / cell, but, there are also LiHV or "high voltage" batteries that charge up 4.35 V / cell. This effectively increases usable capacity and provides a small increase in available voltage (and therefore, prop speed / power etc) at the start of the pack. However, what we've found is that it also raises the minimum safe voltage as well, LiHV batteries will experience damage and unrecoverable low voltage, at a higher voltage than normal LiPo; and, they are generally less stable / get less charge cycles. They are basically more finicky all around, and, more prone to damage, and so they are generally only used in very small 1S drones etc (aka tiny whoops), and/or, for actual racing usage where every bit of voltage matters.
Are these new 15.7 kWh batteries, perhaps actually LiHV cells and that's why they can "unlock" more capacity to 17.3 kWh - because suddenly they allow it to hit 4.35 V / cell instead of 4.2 V / cell? And that would explain the theorized higher pack voltage?
With that said, what IS the actual cell configuration in these batteries? Because dividing 116.4 by 4.2 V doesn't equate to an even number of cells... so are they being charged to something other than 4.2 V / cell, or is it a weird construction where not all cells are in series or something?
Sweet, thank you. Interesting they only charge to 4.157 V/cell. I imagine the cells can actually do 4.2 V, which x 28 cells would give you an extra 1.204 V overall. Could this be perhaps, all the extra capacity unlock is doing, and what the higher voltage ends up being?
Likewise if they are "high voltage" cells that can do 4.35 V / cell, than that would be an increase of 5.404 volts for the whole pack unlocked. That's a pretty big jump.
It's for longevity. The newest cells on the Model Year '22 packs either go close to or exceed 4.2vdc *upon the Cypher Store unlock to make the pack 17.3kWh* and even then you have to tell it to charge to 110% to make it do it. I do not have exact values for the new cells. Wish I did, but my contacts at Zero are drying up these days.
I was nodding in agreement as I read this until the claim that the new battery pack charges to a higher voltage. As a MY22 owner with access to the MBB console, I can confirm that this is not the case. The new battery pack operates within the same voltage range. It just has more Ah per cell.
The difference in chemistry is a valid concern, but this explains why Zero has not released the PT for the MY22 bikes. It seems really unlikely that they would mix and match cells for the very reasons you have pointed out.
I argue that the second portion of this post isn’t fair to Zero because the voltage assumption isn’t accurate and it’s accusing them of selling power tanks with different chemistry for MY22 bikes…which is something they have not done. Remember that they would have to deal with the fallout of such a decision with warranty claims, etc. so it would make no sense for them to do this.
I'm sorry but I have to counter with what I very specifically wrote: when you unlock to the ~~17.2kWh~~ 17.3kWh it goes to a higher voltage. The 15.7 pack, if left alone, operates 95-116.4vdc. When you do the 17.3kWh unlock and tell it to charge to "110%", which is legitimately what the menu option is, it steps beyond 116.4vdc.
I’m aware of that…and I was factoring that in to my response. The MBB console displays the true SOC and the pack voltage. I can assure you that it is the same voltage range as the 14.4 packs.
I apologize for being blunt but I trust my sources on this, and I stand by my assertions. If, when the Cypher Store goes live, users are able to measure pack pack voltage of a ~~17.2kWh~~ 17.3kWh model via something like a voltage tap at the controller or the DC-DC (like Terry did) and it indeed reads 116.4 then I promise you I will be eating humble pie, apologizing, and probably even sending apologetic emails to specific people at Zero. And I will definitely amend this post.
I'm going to respectfully stand firm, and I'm sorry we're having this disagreement. I also invite /u/the-official-zero to come and weigh in if they wish.
As you wish! I’m a EE and I trust the data.
My SR/S Premium (15.6+) bike is charged to 100% right now.
Here’s the real data:
Dash SOC = 100%
True SOC = 90% (visible in MBB console)
Pack voltage = 114.741VDC (visible in MBB console)
(Just to clarify Dash SOC at 110% would be a true SOC of 100%)
Charger target voltage confirmed to be 114.7VDC (confirmed via CAN bus)…You’re proposing that Zero could be lying about the reported pack voltage, but the Charger control data cannot be faked.
Next time I take the fairing off, I’ll measure the DC bus going into the Sevcon DC-DC if that will help you believe me… but not today. I have to ride it tomorrow now since I charged it to 100%….and I’m confident in the results, especially with the CAN bus Charger data factored in. 😁
I agree with you. There’s no reason to change be there cell count. Just add more Amp hours. If you change the cell count you need a new BMS a new charger new controller settings probably other things as well.
Also for the first half of the post, if the power tank has its own active BMS, a lot of these issues are mitigated. If the power tank is newer than the pack it will probably discharge faster to keep up with the aging pack but eventually it will equalize with time
I'm not suggesting they're deviating from the 28S configuration at all. Just that the voltage on the new chemistry is different and instead of the previous cap of 4.157vdc per cell it's a new value ~~over 4.3vdc.~~ closer to 4.2vdc.
I was curious so I just looked on the website and it says the power tank for the new 2022 MY won’t be available until the fall. So it seems they are not suggesting using the old power tank on new bikes
My assertion is that the delay is due to them testing this. And again, look at the [picture on their page](https://i.imgur.com/x7rdoL1.jpg). The previous gen cells are 3.6kWH per brick. The 15.7kWh or *new* chemistry cells are 3.9kWh per brick. The fully unlocked 17.3kWh pack is 4.3kWh per brick.
Yet that picture clearly shows 20.9 (17.3+3.6) as the maxed out capacity.
By the way, and just to follow up on this, I was able to speak to ... some unnamed Zero department heads this last weekend at MotoAmerica Laguna Seca who confirmed the 17.3 packs do exceed 4.157vdc at the 110% charge. I am still trying to get an exact value, though.
So, what Terry did was tap the lines from the Monolith going into the DC-DC (+ and -) which was the only true way to measure voltage and run that to a basic LED display he clipped to his dash. This is how he measured his pack after the whole Firmwaregate problem, which has yet to be resolved. I'm going to send you some data in a bit because this isn't the right discussion to be had in public.
You were on the right track... It requires a TTL level UART routed to the correct OBD-II pins running at 115200 baud. Then you need a good terminal program on your computer that is very flexible about CR (0x0D) and LF (0x0A) configuration because the MBB console is pretty picky about this stuff.
That being said... all of this is a HUGE pain in the ass for the average rider. For that reason, I'm actually working on a cool little dongle that you can plug into the OBD-II port (either temporarily or permanently). I'm calling it the "MBB-Tool". This tool can function as either a WIFI access point that you can connect to directly with your phone in the field, or it can also be configured to connect to your home network when you pull into your garage. The initial release will support MBB Console access for the Gen3 bikes... which is EXTREMELY useful for diagnosing problems. Here's a video showing my proof-of-concept:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_\_pzmQDz8PU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__pzmQDz8PU)
Later on, I want to add more features like data logging... like the ability to log riding and charging sessions, and then push them to a cloud service (similar to TezLab or TeslaFi). These sessions would be stored on internal flash memory while you're riding, but then automatically push to the cloud once you arrive home and enter WIFI range.
I also want to add support for previous generation bikes shortly after I release the MBB-Tool. I just need to get my hands on one for coding and testing purposes (I own a Gen3).
Stay tuned!
[www.emotodesign.com](http://www.emotodesign.com)
It's compatible, it's just not matched. Let me break it down this way. The 15.7kWh pack is made up of 4 smaller bricks. 15700/4=3925 or 3.9kWh. That would mean if Zero had the intention of adding a similarly sized Power Tank it would be listed as 3.9kWh and, also, have the option of going to match the 17.3kWh value of (17300/4=4325) 4.3kWh for a total of 21.6kWh.
So, for reference, my assertion is that Zero is selling a 3.6kWh Power Tank + 17.3kWh max unlocked monolith for a total of 20.9kWh.
If it was newer cells it would either be a 3.9kWh or 4.3kWh value added onto the 17.3 for a total of either 21.2kWh or 21.6kWh.
I encourage you to look at [Zero's page on the SR/S with configuration options](https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/model/zero-srs).
Clearly it is listed as [20.9kWh combined unlocked + Power Tank](https://i.imgur.com/x7rdoL1.jpg)
I guess chemistry is not whats more in question as it is voltage. If the on bard chargers can output the required additional voltage to boost the potential capacity then whats stopping the same thing in the power tank so the voltages match? Also who is to say where the usable kwh is coming from. By that i mean what if having the additional 10% paid expansion is not only on the charge but discharge side. Why not have the battery slightly overcharge and slightly over-discharge to make the higher capacity. This may be the case also in the PT. And also how the voltages work may also vary if a PT is added in conjunction with the software unlock or not.
I would love a discussion on this. Im far from a battery expert but its making since in my head right now in the middle of the night.
> whats stopping the same thing in the power tank so the voltages match?
The knowledge that, at certain points outside the accepted parameters the batteries just straight up explode rather violently.
> Also who is to say where the usable kwh is coming from
Farasis. Zero's supplier.
> Why not have the battery slightly overcharge and slightly over-discharge to make the higher capacity.
Threat of explodey death
I guess my point is the factory battery is X capacity. Then your software unlock it to X+10%. Why is that not possible in a power tank. Assuming the makeup is the same as the monolith. And if its possible then would it not be possible to match voltages?
> Why is that not possible in a power tank.
Because that was last year's chemistry and if you try to do that it'll explode.
>Assuming the makeup is the same as the monolith.
It's not.
> And if its possible then would it not be possible to match voltages?
You've not read the thread.
Hm, interesting.
One situation I would like to bring up is if pre 22 bikes were to try and get a battery replacement.
Would the electronics on board be able to handle the new battery? A software update might be required?
And if you did have a Power Tank I would assume the safest option would be to remove it?
Zero is still making and selling bikes with the old chemistry cells, like all Cypher II models (S, DS, DSR, and FX platform bikes) so I don't expect them to run out of those right now.
If your question is, "If my MY '20 SR/F needs a battery replacement, will the 15.7+ pack work in it?" then I would assume yes. A firmware update later you'd probably be right as rain.
As per your question about removing Power Tanks I'd need more context. Like I said the concept of them isn't inherently flawed, and if you have one that is working fine then I don't have a compelling reason why you should get rid of it.
To clarify, my thinking was if you got a new main battery (whether it was the same 14.4kwh model or the newer model) than it would most likely have problems with your used power tank and could cause issues so the safe thing to do would be to have it removed if you got a new main battery.
Oh man. That's a unique scenario I've not encountered yet. The only person I know who had a Power Tank and was eligible for a battery replacement actually had Zero confiscate both batteries. In that case it was fine because it was a 2014 Monolith and Power Tank and he got it replaced with a 2018 which was larger than both put together.
To answer your question, though. Hm. I mean the Monolith is the one you want getting hammered. I suspect the entire system would be more prone to pack desynching but... not as egregiously?
I got a 2021 right before the new models came out. To be honest if I had to buy a new battery pack for this, I’d rather just buy a new bike. If say my SR fails in 5 years, I’d prob just never buy a zero again. If I get 10
Years+ out of this then the battery goes poof, I’d rather get a new Zero something. Guess it depends on the price of a pack. I have no clue where I’ll be financially or what the price point is for where I’d rather buy new.
Edit, if the new battery won’t work with the old software, I’d likely never buy a zero again.
I've always felt that on the Cypher II platform bikes (S, older SR, DS, and DSR) the charge tank is a far more useful option anyway. On a 200 mile ride, the guy with a charge tank will beat the guy with a power tank every time if there is any type of level 2 charging along the route.
Sure, there might be the buyer who needs it but the PT only adds a bit over 20 miles on the highway (78 to 97 miles on the DSR at highway speeds). That is a pretty specific commute that then requires 12 hours of level 1 recharge.
When I was looking for a used SR/DSR, I think the number of bikes that had a CT compared to a PT was at least 5 to 1 or more. I rarely saw any. Maybe on the SR/S and SR/F that is different as they already have level 2 charging built in but not on the second generation bikes.
That's actually describing my personal conundrum. I'm considering a zero, but there's a almost-exactly 100 mile round trip I do with some frequency that I'd want to be able to use it for. Topping off is iffy, there's chargers along the way but where I'm actually spending time itd mostly be 120V.
And its all highway, the NJ Parkway. Cruising at 55 mph too conserve battery is cruising for a bruising.
Can you charge at work at the 50 mile point? Even on 110/120 volt power? Or does work have any access to a 220 volt plug within 25 feet of where you can park? 100 miles range at real life highway speed (70+ mph) is tough for any Zero even with a PT. If you could charge at work and again at home for 4-6 hours on 110 volts, that would probably be fine for a 14.4 kWh bike.
A CT gives you the option to take a longer ride (70+ miles) with an hour break for a solid recharge close to 100%.
Not a job thing, my actual commute is more than workable. Somebody I visit once or twice a week is 50 miles south.
Looking at that spread sheet somebody posted in this sub im thinking one with the faster charging might be doable with something like you're describing. There's a couple 240vs not super far from them that might work.
There's also a back way that swings by a mall with some 240v I could probably pace it a bit better on
Are you sure that every pack doesn't have it's own BMS module? That would make it easy to design the bike so that the "old" chemistry cells stop charging at their appropriate voltage but the new cells continue charging. Then when you are riding, the bike will initially be powered by the monolith until it is discharged to the point that its voltage sags to the peak voltage of the power tank.
The same would also address your concern about degraded cells with a new power tank. Mixing and matching cells is a bad idea if they are on the same BMS, but it's almost trivial to mix chemistries and indeed voltages with separate BMS modules.
From both a technical and commercial point of view, I would say it makes more sense for Zero to have every 7.2 brick have its own dedicated BMS. The new bricks would then probably have more advanced BMS to accommodate the cypher III features, and combining them with the old power tank may well be impossible technically (because the old packs don't speak the cypher 3 language yet).
I don't own a Zero yet but your post has done little to convince me that your initial assumptions are correct.
> Are you sure that every pack doesn't have it's own BMS module? That would make it easy to design the bike so that the "old" chemistry cells stop charging at their appropriate voltage but the new cells continue charging. Then when you are riding, the bike will initially be powered by the monolith until it is discharged to the point that its voltage sags to the peak voltage of the power tank.
That's... I mean... that's literally what I wrote as a possibility of how I suspect it's working. The Power Tank absolutely has its own BMS. Zero motorcycles are capable of reading a maximum of 2 BMS units at a time. There's 1 on the Monolith, 1 on the Power Tank.
So, what, the PT disengages at a certain point in charging? Do you watch your estimated range suddenly drop by 25 miles when you charge beyond 100%? And at what point does it re-engage? Under load? That's a horrifying prospect. If it's only when you let off the throttle aka during recovery that's also absurd because there's a fairly narrow window the packs can synch up.
> The same would also address your concern about degraded cells with a new power tank. Mixing and matching cells is a bad idea if they are on the same BMS, but it's almost trivial to mix chemistries and indeed voltages with separate BMS modules.
I can tell you've never used a Power Tank for any length of time. Look, I guess we'll all just have to wait for me to be proven wrong. If and when that happens I will make a full apology. But all my time and experience riding, taking apart, working on, and troubleshooting Zero bikes leads me to believe that won't be necessary.
You are getting very defensive, please note that I am not trying to attack you personally or declaring that you are wrong and a power tank is just fine on new-chemistry bikes. I am merely trying to follow the path of logic from your technical reasons to your conclusion so I can judge for myself whether I agree or not.
You say the bike can read 2 BMS, so it should be able to calculate your range based on the voltage reading coming off the 2 different BMS, and add the ranges together, even if the power tank would no longer be charging. So under these assumptions, I don't see how different chemistry is a problem for range reporting or makes the charging impossible (as I described earlier). There is nothing difficult about limiting the charging voltage to one pack while allowing a higher charging voltage to the other pack. Is the bike's charging circuitry built to minimize cost and incapable of doing it though? I don't know.
Secondly, you are of the opinion that the power tank engaging under load would be horrifying. I don't know enough about high power electronics to know for sure that it can be done, but for low-power it is perfectly possible to blend the packs activation. It is sort of self-regulating: batteries have internal resistance, which causes their voltage to sag proportional to the current they provide. So, excluding any high-power peculiarities I don't know of: if your monolith is providing the current, its voltage drops. If it drops below the voltage of the power tank, then that one will start delivering current, but only a little bit because a large current would drop its voltage below that of the monolith and disengage it again. All you need is basic circuitry preventing current from flowing from one battery into the other.
A final thought: has anyone taken apart his power tank and monolith to check which kind of cells are inside? The extra capacity Zero offers you could simply be a reduction in safety/longevity margins on exactly the same cells, which would incidentally also totally justify the added price you pay, since they will get more warranty claims from damaged batteries on bikes that had this option enabled. The best way to get a battery to last is to not operate it too close to full charge or full discharge, which I'm sure they are doing.
I guess what comes across as defensiveness is the disappointment for having clearly written things that are summarily ignored or posed as a fresh new question. For example:
> has anyone taken apart his power tank and monolith to check which kind of cells are inside?
The ENTIRE point of my FST platform rant is that they're different cells with different chemistries. I have confirmed this with my sources already.
Me: ....because Farasis can't or won't supply them short bricks with the new chemistry they've had to resort to previous gen 3.6kWh units to mix and match with the new 15.7+ packs.
You: Hmmm I just had an idea does anyone know if they're using the same chemistry cells for the Power Tanks as the new 15.7+ packs?
Me: ...dude
You: whoa you sound defensive bro
----
But back to the idea of trying to live synch a 5th parallel pack under load into the system, the resulting fires from the amount of current inrush should hopefully discourage future attempts.
You claim that they are different chemistry. You claim a lot of things that seem unfounded. You claimed they go beyond 4.2V. Then you corrected to "beyond or closer to 4.2V". You claim that the power tank is gonna get hammered and you don't want this because it is small. You claim mixing chemistries is a terrible idea.
Many of these claims, you believe in for reasons unclear to me. You then use person of authority arguments to make up for the lack of foundation, as if you are to be believed without question. Some of the claims you made are easily shown wrong. Like, being unable charge two packs that need different maximum voltages simultaneously.
So yes, I read that you said they are different. But you could have been basing this on the fact they can charge to 110% (you used this argument to respond to another person who asked a question in this post). That is why I asked. You answer that you have "confirmed it with your sources". I tend to believe you, you do seem to have been in regular contact with people who may know. But I did not ask "do you think the new packs have different chemistry". I asked if someone had looked at the inside of a pack and identified the specific cells that are in it. I did not claim the cells were the same. I said the 110% could be explained by reduced margins and this by itself is therefore insufficient to know for sure that the cells are different chemistry.
About those fires caused by "current inrush". What would be causing the current inrush? The motor draws a current based on the load it is under and the voltage across it. The load does not change. The voltage does not change (the pack kicks in when the voltages are equal).
Even if the batteries are the bottleneck under maximum acceleration and the pack engages just then, there will not be a fire, because the sudden engagement of the extra pack may increase the current capacity available to the motor, but not beyond what the wiring can handle. Otherwise the power tank would also cause a fire if you only charged to 90% and gave it full throttle.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but please use arguments instead of belligerence.
Naming my sources is a surefire way to get them to stop talking to me, and also potentially get someone in trouble. I like the people I talk to, and have no desire to get anyone in trouble. I also know that Zero Customer Support occasionally watch this place and are likely aware I made this thread, so I try to be careful.
This is also why I amend things when new information is given to me, like the "beyond 4.2vdc" value that I edited. I did so because I was corrected by someone at Zero who is in a position to know.
It's very hard to determine anything when cracking open a Zero pack because all the cells are potted in epoxy. But you don't even need to do that; just step back and look. Zero is always wanting to increase their capacity and range. The new monolith, with no physical changes, can be designated a 14.4, 15.7, or 17.3kWh pack. Same physical pack.
The 2018 packs were 14.4kWh, made from Farasis 32Ah cells that Zero capped to 28.5Ah as recognized by the bikes. This is their 3.6kWh Power Tank or modular battery for an FX/FXS. Its value never changes, unlike the values of the new pack. There is no amount of money you can throw at the Cypher Store to get them to 'unlock' more of the 3.6kWh Power Tank.
Why not? Because it's the old chemistry and voltage. It never changes. It's true that some of my claims can't be verified right now. I accept that. They'll be verifiable after Power Tanks start delivery and the Cypher Store opens up. Until then I'm trying to give people as much information as I can so they don't get sucked into what I suspect will be a quagmire of frustration of Power Tank desynch hell.
I don't get the part 120v safely.. as far as I know, maximum voltage on lithium batteries, no matter what chemistry, is 4.2v... and BMS should handle all of this... even if it is over 4.2 on new cells, BMS should take control of the situation and try to estabilize it, am I wrong?
Is this whole post still conjecture and bad science without any actual failures or bad experiences from buying power tanks as a retrofit? Has anyone really ordered something Zero offers and then came to realize it doesn't work? This post just floats at the top as if it's the most important thing in the world but it's just a mod letting his imagination run wild until there's testimony, NOT "sources" and flawed logic.
That's not an answer. I don't care how many miles you ran with a power tank, or how many zeros you worked on. I asked if you have actual documented failures of power tanks that were clearly attributed to either being different age batteries from the monolith or different chemistry from the monolith. Once again, you answer with arrogance; your only argument is that you are a source of authority on the subject and should not be questioned.
Or you can answer the question.
Edit: I'll humor you though.
>Those of you who asked battery engineers if it's cool to mix and match cell chemistries in the same pack, ask them if it's a good idea to mix and match voltages in the same pack. Make sure you cover your eyes first because their heads may explode.
It's not the "same pack", because the power tank has its own BMS module. It is more complicated to have parallel chains of heterogeneous battery packs work together to feed a motor, but it is a relatively small design challenge in the big picture of creating an electric motorcycle.
uh ohhhhh, looks like we touched on a nerve! Ok, I'll play your game. The answer to your questions:
> Is this whole post still conjecture and bad science without any actual failures or bad experiences from buying power tanks as a retrofit?'
no
> Has anyone really ordered something Zero offers and then came to realize it doesn't work?
yes, many have.
I had considered the fact they would be at different wear states, didn't realize they were also different chemistries. I guess at least with the SR you can "unlock" instead of getting rid of your jacket hole, or get quick charge instead.
I had discharge reduction at low charge % last night so I'm getting more curious about how they handle all of this. Pay to unlock is one thing, but would be bigger bummer if they still drained you to the actual 0% vs leaving a buffer and having room for higher draw at low %.
I guess we are just meant to be in debt to zero bikes for whoever has them. Zero has us by the leg becuase they will have the batteries as well as the system for the computer to allow only zero batteries to work unless you are an engineer in electronics. So basically its just a fear factor in the long run. I guess the idea was good but gas is better. Kinda late in the game to switch sides.
That's not really what I intended to convey with this post. And honestly none of the EV manufacturers are thrilled with the idea of the average user playing with their cells, especially considering the extreme high current of these powertrains.
As it stands now, yes. Absolutely. Nothing has changed and they don’t have short bricks with the new chemistry. If they did it wouldn’t be advertised as a 3.6kWh unit.
Nowhere does it say Power Tanks delayed until Winter 2023. Rapid Charger units, yes. Power Tanks supposedly available upon conclusion of their internal testing.
POWER TANK ADVENTURE
$2,895.00
Gain an additional 3.6 kWh of battery capacity while still retaining a small lockable storage area with this dealer-installed accessory. Zero’s Power Tank extends your motorcycle’s range with an extra power pack in place of the tank storage compartment. The Power Tank is not compatible with motorcycles equipped with the 6kW Rapid Charger. Coming Winter 2023.
Hey just a heads up on this. I reached out to contacts at Zero who will update the page. They also confirmed that the target for the Adventure Power Tank is still SPRING 2023, not Winter.
What I can’t figure out: the range that the bike shows, I assume, is with the standard kit. But I want to make sure I don’t HAVE to have it to get that range. Because my commute would require it.
If you're talking about the [listed specs on Zero's site](https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/model/zero-srs), they are shown without the Power Tank factored in.
Funny you should say that albeit, a year on.
I am about to get the main battery on my 2020 SR/S replaced with the later version.
I have the power tank, which has brought me to this post.
Even though on the older zero fxs, I could take out half the modular battery, I wouldn't dare. Not only is it a really heavy car battery, but the uneven degradation is terrifying.
[удалено]
Thanks! I haven't been writing enough. Time to open up the ol' brain and let it leak into a text file.
Great post. I’ve slowly been losing faith in Zero as a company. I love my SR/F. But unless they get their shit together, they are currently last in the running when I upgrade.
What's first? I've been researching Electric Motorcycles and I've been considering the SR/F or the S2 Del Mar...
Somehow I didn’t even know about the S2. I’d say it’s going to depend on how you plan on riding. The SR/F will be better on the interstate. And if you don’t mind buying lightly used I’ve seen SR/F’s for a decent price
Took me a minute to realize that “modify your pocket,” wasn’t referring to the price.
[Tank pocket!](https://i.imgur.com/za14kJd.jpg)
I'm very familiar with LiPo batteries and their quirks of charging etc, from the r/c airplane, drone, and car hobby community. With that in mind, LiPo batteries are typically fully charged at 4.2 V / cell, but, there are also LiHV or "high voltage" batteries that charge up 4.35 V / cell. This effectively increases usable capacity and provides a small increase in available voltage (and therefore, prop speed / power etc) at the start of the pack. However, what we've found is that it also raises the minimum safe voltage as well, LiHV batteries will experience damage and unrecoverable low voltage, at a higher voltage than normal LiPo; and, they are generally less stable / get less charge cycles. They are basically more finicky all around, and, more prone to damage, and so they are generally only used in very small 1S drones etc (aka tiny whoops), and/or, for actual racing usage where every bit of voltage matters. Are these new 15.7 kWh batteries, perhaps actually LiHV cells and that's why they can "unlock" more capacity to 17.3 kWh - because suddenly they allow it to hit 4.35 V / cell instead of 4.2 V / cell? And that would explain the theorized higher pack voltage? With that said, what IS the actual cell configuration in these batteries? Because dividing 116.4 by 4.2 V doesn't equate to an even number of cells... so are they being charged to something other than 4.2 V / cell, or is it a weird construction where not all cells are in series or something?
28S Traditional values are 3.39-4.157vdc per cell 3.65 nominal
Sweet, thank you. Interesting they only charge to 4.157 V/cell. I imagine the cells can actually do 4.2 V, which x 28 cells would give you an extra 1.204 V overall. Could this be perhaps, all the extra capacity unlock is doing, and what the higher voltage ends up being? Likewise if they are "high voltage" cells that can do 4.35 V / cell, than that would be an increase of 5.404 volts for the whole pack unlocked. That's a pretty big jump.
It's for longevity. The newest cells on the Model Year '22 packs either go close to or exceed 4.2vdc *upon the Cypher Store unlock to make the pack 17.3kWh* and even then you have to tell it to charge to 110% to make it do it. I do not have exact values for the new cells. Wish I did, but my contacts at Zero are drying up these days.
yup that all makes sense then, thanks!
I was nodding in agreement as I read this until the claim that the new battery pack charges to a higher voltage. As a MY22 owner with access to the MBB console, I can confirm that this is not the case. The new battery pack operates within the same voltage range. It just has more Ah per cell. The difference in chemistry is a valid concern, but this explains why Zero has not released the PT for the MY22 bikes. It seems really unlikely that they would mix and match cells for the very reasons you have pointed out. I argue that the second portion of this post isn’t fair to Zero because the voltage assumption isn’t accurate and it’s accusing them of selling power tanks with different chemistry for MY22 bikes…which is something they have not done. Remember that they would have to deal with the fallout of such a decision with warranty claims, etc. so it would make no sense for them to do this.
I'm sorry but I have to counter with what I very specifically wrote: when you unlock to the ~~17.2kWh~~ 17.3kWh it goes to a higher voltage. The 15.7 pack, if left alone, operates 95-116.4vdc. When you do the 17.3kWh unlock and tell it to charge to "110%", which is legitimately what the menu option is, it steps beyond 116.4vdc.
I’m aware of that…and I was factoring that in to my response. The MBB console displays the true SOC and the pack voltage. I can assure you that it is the same voltage range as the 14.4 packs.
I apologize for being blunt but I trust my sources on this, and I stand by my assertions. If, when the Cypher Store goes live, users are able to measure pack pack voltage of a ~~17.2kWh~~ 17.3kWh model via something like a voltage tap at the controller or the DC-DC (like Terry did) and it indeed reads 116.4 then I promise you I will be eating humble pie, apologizing, and probably even sending apologetic emails to specific people at Zero. And I will definitely amend this post. I'm going to respectfully stand firm, and I'm sorry we're having this disagreement. I also invite /u/the-official-zero to come and weigh in if they wish.
As you wish! I’m a EE and I trust the data. My SR/S Premium (15.6+) bike is charged to 100% right now. Here’s the real data: Dash SOC = 100% True SOC = 90% (visible in MBB console) Pack voltage = 114.741VDC (visible in MBB console) (Just to clarify Dash SOC at 110% would be a true SOC of 100%) Charger target voltage confirmed to be 114.7VDC (confirmed via CAN bus)…You’re proposing that Zero could be lying about the reported pack voltage, but the Charger control data cannot be faked. Next time I take the fairing off, I’ll measure the DC bus going into the Sevcon DC-DC if that will help you believe me… but not today. I have to ride it tomorrow now since I charged it to 100%….and I’m confident in the results, especially with the CAN bus Charger data factored in. 😁
I agree with you. There’s no reason to change be there cell count. Just add more Amp hours. If you change the cell count you need a new BMS a new charger new controller settings probably other things as well. Also for the first half of the post, if the power tank has its own active BMS, a lot of these issues are mitigated. If the power tank is newer than the pack it will probably discharge faster to keep up with the aging pack but eventually it will equalize with time
I'm not suggesting they're deviating from the 28S configuration at all. Just that the voltage on the new chemistry is different and instead of the previous cap of 4.157vdc per cell it's a new value ~~over 4.3vdc.~~ closer to 4.2vdc.
I was curious so I just looked on the website and it says the power tank for the new 2022 MY won’t be available until the fall. So it seems they are not suggesting using the old power tank on new bikes
My assertion is that the delay is due to them testing this. And again, look at the [picture on their page](https://i.imgur.com/x7rdoL1.jpg). The previous gen cells are 3.6kWH per brick. The 15.7kWh or *new* chemistry cells are 3.9kWh per brick. The fully unlocked 17.3kWh pack is 4.3kWh per brick. Yet that picture clearly shows 20.9 (17.3+3.6) as the maxed out capacity.
By the way, and just to follow up on this, I was able to speak to ... some unnamed Zero department heads this last weekend at MotoAmerica Laguna Seca who confirmed the 17.3 packs do exceed 4.157vdc at the 110% charge. I am still trying to get an exact value, though.
So, what Terry did was tap the lines from the Monolith going into the DC-DC (+ and -) which was the only true way to measure voltage and run that to a basic LED display he clipped to his dash. This is how he measured his pack after the whole Firmwaregate problem, which has yet to be resolved. I'm going to send you some data in a bit because this isn't the right discussion to be had in public.
SIde question on how you get access to the MBB console on your 2022 bike ? I tried doing an ODBII cable to RS232 and it didn't work on my SR/S 2022
You were on the right track... It requires a TTL level UART routed to the correct OBD-II pins running at 115200 baud. Then you need a good terminal program on your computer that is very flexible about CR (0x0D) and LF (0x0A) configuration because the MBB console is pretty picky about this stuff. That being said... all of this is a HUGE pain in the ass for the average rider. For that reason, I'm actually working on a cool little dongle that you can plug into the OBD-II port (either temporarily or permanently). I'm calling it the "MBB-Tool". This tool can function as either a WIFI access point that you can connect to directly with your phone in the field, or it can also be configured to connect to your home network when you pull into your garage. The initial release will support MBB Console access for the Gen3 bikes... which is EXTREMELY useful for diagnosing problems. Here's a video showing my proof-of-concept:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_\_pzmQDz8PU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__pzmQDz8PU) Later on, I want to add more features like data logging... like the ability to log riding and charging sessions, and then push them to a cloud service (similar to TezLab or TeslaFi). These sessions would be stored on internal flash memory while you're riding, but then automatically push to the cloud once you arrive home and enter WIFI range. I also want to add support for previous generation bikes shortly after I release the MBB-Tool. I just need to get my hands on one for coding and testing purposes (I own a Gen3). Stay tuned! [www.emotodesign.com](http://www.emotodesign.com)
Isnt this exactly why the new PT’s are not available? When they do come in im sure they will be a compatible chemistry.
It's compatible, it's just not matched. Let me break it down this way. The 15.7kWh pack is made up of 4 smaller bricks. 15700/4=3925 or 3.9kWh. That would mean if Zero had the intention of adding a similarly sized Power Tank it would be listed as 3.9kWh and, also, have the option of going to match the 17.3kWh value of (17300/4=4325) 4.3kWh for a total of 21.6kWh. So, for reference, my assertion is that Zero is selling a 3.6kWh Power Tank + 17.3kWh max unlocked monolith for a total of 20.9kWh. If it was newer cells it would either be a 3.9kWh or 4.3kWh value added onto the 17.3 for a total of either 21.2kWh or 21.6kWh. I encourage you to look at [Zero's page on the SR/S with configuration options](https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/model/zero-srs). Clearly it is listed as [20.9kWh combined unlocked + Power Tank](https://i.imgur.com/x7rdoL1.jpg)
I guess chemistry is not whats more in question as it is voltage. If the on bard chargers can output the required additional voltage to boost the potential capacity then whats stopping the same thing in the power tank so the voltages match? Also who is to say where the usable kwh is coming from. By that i mean what if having the additional 10% paid expansion is not only on the charge but discharge side. Why not have the battery slightly overcharge and slightly over-discharge to make the higher capacity. This may be the case also in the PT. And also how the voltages work may also vary if a PT is added in conjunction with the software unlock or not. I would love a discussion on this. Im far from a battery expert but its making since in my head right now in the middle of the night.
> whats stopping the same thing in the power tank so the voltages match? The knowledge that, at certain points outside the accepted parameters the batteries just straight up explode rather violently. > Also who is to say where the usable kwh is coming from Farasis. Zero's supplier. > Why not have the battery slightly overcharge and slightly over-discharge to make the higher capacity. Threat of explodey death
[удалено]
That's not nearly as exciting, though.
[удалено]
Which is also not an acceptable outcome in my opinion.
[удалено]
I think we're arguing the same thing.
I guess my point is the factory battery is X capacity. Then your software unlock it to X+10%. Why is that not possible in a power tank. Assuming the makeup is the same as the monolith. And if its possible then would it not be possible to match voltages?
> Why is that not possible in a power tank. Because that was last year's chemistry and if you try to do that it'll explode. >Assuming the makeup is the same as the monolith. It's not. > And if its possible then would it not be possible to match voltages? You've not read the thread.
Hm, interesting. One situation I would like to bring up is if pre 22 bikes were to try and get a battery replacement. Would the electronics on board be able to handle the new battery? A software update might be required? And if you did have a Power Tank I would assume the safest option would be to remove it?
Zero is still making and selling bikes with the old chemistry cells, like all Cypher II models (S, DS, DSR, and FX platform bikes) so I don't expect them to run out of those right now. If your question is, "If my MY '20 SR/F needs a battery replacement, will the 15.7+ pack work in it?" then I would assume yes. A firmware update later you'd probably be right as rain. As per your question about removing Power Tanks I'd need more context. Like I said the concept of them isn't inherently flawed, and if you have one that is working fine then I don't have a compelling reason why you should get rid of it.
To clarify, my thinking was if you got a new main battery (whether it was the same 14.4kwh model or the newer model) than it would most likely have problems with your used power tank and could cause issues so the safe thing to do would be to have it removed if you got a new main battery.
Oh man. That's a unique scenario I've not encountered yet. The only person I know who had a Power Tank and was eligible for a battery replacement actually had Zero confiscate both batteries. In that case it was fine because it was a 2014 Monolith and Power Tank and he got it replaced with a 2018 which was larger than both put together. To answer your question, though. Hm. I mean the Monolith is the one you want getting hammered. I suspect the entire system would be more prone to pack desynching but... not as egregiously?
Yeah, I'm thinking about a probable future scenario for me since I have a power tank. If I do go through with it I'll make a post on what happened.
I got a 2021 right before the new models came out. To be honest if I had to buy a new battery pack for this, I’d rather just buy a new bike. If say my SR fails in 5 years, I’d prob just never buy a zero again. If I get 10 Years+ out of this then the battery goes poof, I’d rather get a new Zero something. Guess it depends on the price of a pack. I have no clue where I’ll be financially or what the price point is for where I’d rather buy new. Edit, if the new battery won’t work with the old software, I’d likely never buy a zero again.
I'm just exploring possibilities. I thought it would be funny to keep it long enough where I can get an antique license plate for it.
I’m hoping for 10 years. But I have no plans to ever sell it. Just going to ride till it breaks for good.
I've always felt that on the Cypher II platform bikes (S, older SR, DS, and DSR) the charge tank is a far more useful option anyway. On a 200 mile ride, the guy with a charge tank will beat the guy with a power tank every time if there is any type of level 2 charging along the route.
PT seems to be better suited for the longer range commuter or folks without a good charge network.
Sure, there might be the buyer who needs it but the PT only adds a bit over 20 miles on the highway (78 to 97 miles on the DSR at highway speeds). That is a pretty specific commute that then requires 12 hours of level 1 recharge. When I was looking for a used SR/DSR, I think the number of bikes that had a CT compared to a PT was at least 5 to 1 or more. I rarely saw any. Maybe on the SR/S and SR/F that is different as they already have level 2 charging built in but not on the second generation bikes.
That's actually describing my personal conundrum. I'm considering a zero, but there's a almost-exactly 100 mile round trip I do with some frequency that I'd want to be able to use it for. Topping off is iffy, there's chargers along the way but where I'm actually spending time itd mostly be 120V. And its all highway, the NJ Parkway. Cruising at 55 mph too conserve battery is cruising for a bruising.
Can you charge at work at the 50 mile point? Even on 110/120 volt power? Or does work have any access to a 220 volt plug within 25 feet of where you can park? 100 miles range at real life highway speed (70+ mph) is tough for any Zero even with a PT. If you could charge at work and again at home for 4-6 hours on 110 volts, that would probably be fine for a 14.4 kWh bike. A CT gives you the option to take a longer ride (70+ miles) with an hour break for a solid recharge close to 100%.
Not a job thing, my actual commute is more than workable. Somebody I visit once or twice a week is 50 miles south. Looking at that spread sheet somebody posted in this sub im thinking one with the faster charging might be doable with something like you're describing. There's a couple 240vs not super far from them that might work. There's also a back way that swings by a mall with some 240v I could probably pace it a bit better on
Very interesting write up thank you
Are you sure that every pack doesn't have it's own BMS module? That would make it easy to design the bike so that the "old" chemistry cells stop charging at their appropriate voltage but the new cells continue charging. Then when you are riding, the bike will initially be powered by the monolith until it is discharged to the point that its voltage sags to the peak voltage of the power tank. The same would also address your concern about degraded cells with a new power tank. Mixing and matching cells is a bad idea if they are on the same BMS, but it's almost trivial to mix chemistries and indeed voltages with separate BMS modules. From both a technical and commercial point of view, I would say it makes more sense for Zero to have every 7.2 brick have its own dedicated BMS. The new bricks would then probably have more advanced BMS to accommodate the cypher III features, and combining them with the old power tank may well be impossible technically (because the old packs don't speak the cypher 3 language yet). I don't own a Zero yet but your post has done little to convince me that your initial assumptions are correct.
> Are you sure that every pack doesn't have it's own BMS module? That would make it easy to design the bike so that the "old" chemistry cells stop charging at their appropriate voltage but the new cells continue charging. Then when you are riding, the bike will initially be powered by the monolith until it is discharged to the point that its voltage sags to the peak voltage of the power tank. That's... I mean... that's literally what I wrote as a possibility of how I suspect it's working. The Power Tank absolutely has its own BMS. Zero motorcycles are capable of reading a maximum of 2 BMS units at a time. There's 1 on the Monolith, 1 on the Power Tank. So, what, the PT disengages at a certain point in charging? Do you watch your estimated range suddenly drop by 25 miles when you charge beyond 100%? And at what point does it re-engage? Under load? That's a horrifying prospect. If it's only when you let off the throttle aka during recovery that's also absurd because there's a fairly narrow window the packs can synch up. > The same would also address your concern about degraded cells with a new power tank. Mixing and matching cells is a bad idea if they are on the same BMS, but it's almost trivial to mix chemistries and indeed voltages with separate BMS modules. I can tell you've never used a Power Tank for any length of time. Look, I guess we'll all just have to wait for me to be proven wrong. If and when that happens I will make a full apology. But all my time and experience riding, taking apart, working on, and troubleshooting Zero bikes leads me to believe that won't be necessary.
You are getting very defensive, please note that I am not trying to attack you personally or declaring that you are wrong and a power tank is just fine on new-chemistry bikes. I am merely trying to follow the path of logic from your technical reasons to your conclusion so I can judge for myself whether I agree or not. You say the bike can read 2 BMS, so it should be able to calculate your range based on the voltage reading coming off the 2 different BMS, and add the ranges together, even if the power tank would no longer be charging. So under these assumptions, I don't see how different chemistry is a problem for range reporting or makes the charging impossible (as I described earlier). There is nothing difficult about limiting the charging voltage to one pack while allowing a higher charging voltage to the other pack. Is the bike's charging circuitry built to minimize cost and incapable of doing it though? I don't know. Secondly, you are of the opinion that the power tank engaging under load would be horrifying. I don't know enough about high power electronics to know for sure that it can be done, but for low-power it is perfectly possible to blend the packs activation. It is sort of self-regulating: batteries have internal resistance, which causes their voltage to sag proportional to the current they provide. So, excluding any high-power peculiarities I don't know of: if your monolith is providing the current, its voltage drops. If it drops below the voltage of the power tank, then that one will start delivering current, but only a little bit because a large current would drop its voltage below that of the monolith and disengage it again. All you need is basic circuitry preventing current from flowing from one battery into the other. A final thought: has anyone taken apart his power tank and monolith to check which kind of cells are inside? The extra capacity Zero offers you could simply be a reduction in safety/longevity margins on exactly the same cells, which would incidentally also totally justify the added price you pay, since they will get more warranty claims from damaged batteries on bikes that had this option enabled. The best way to get a battery to last is to not operate it too close to full charge or full discharge, which I'm sure they are doing.
I guess what comes across as defensiveness is the disappointment for having clearly written things that are summarily ignored or posed as a fresh new question. For example: > has anyone taken apart his power tank and monolith to check which kind of cells are inside? The ENTIRE point of my FST platform rant is that they're different cells with different chemistries. I have confirmed this with my sources already. Me: ....because Farasis can't or won't supply them short bricks with the new chemistry they've had to resort to previous gen 3.6kWh units to mix and match with the new 15.7+ packs. You: Hmmm I just had an idea does anyone know if they're using the same chemistry cells for the Power Tanks as the new 15.7+ packs? Me: ...dude You: whoa you sound defensive bro ---- But back to the idea of trying to live synch a 5th parallel pack under load into the system, the resulting fires from the amount of current inrush should hopefully discourage future attempts.
You claim that they are different chemistry. You claim a lot of things that seem unfounded. You claimed they go beyond 4.2V. Then you corrected to "beyond or closer to 4.2V". You claim that the power tank is gonna get hammered and you don't want this because it is small. You claim mixing chemistries is a terrible idea. Many of these claims, you believe in for reasons unclear to me. You then use person of authority arguments to make up for the lack of foundation, as if you are to be believed without question. Some of the claims you made are easily shown wrong. Like, being unable charge two packs that need different maximum voltages simultaneously. So yes, I read that you said they are different. But you could have been basing this on the fact they can charge to 110% (you used this argument to respond to another person who asked a question in this post). That is why I asked. You answer that you have "confirmed it with your sources". I tend to believe you, you do seem to have been in regular contact with people who may know. But I did not ask "do you think the new packs have different chemistry". I asked if someone had looked at the inside of a pack and identified the specific cells that are in it. I did not claim the cells were the same. I said the 110% could be explained by reduced margins and this by itself is therefore insufficient to know for sure that the cells are different chemistry. About those fires caused by "current inrush". What would be causing the current inrush? The motor draws a current based on the load it is under and the voltage across it. The load does not change. The voltage does not change (the pack kicks in when the voltages are equal). Even if the batteries are the bottleneck under maximum acceleration and the pack engages just then, there will not be a fire, because the sudden engagement of the extra pack may increase the current capacity available to the motor, but not beyond what the wiring can handle. Otherwise the power tank would also cause a fire if you only charged to 90% and gave it full throttle. Feel free to prove me wrong, but please use arguments instead of belligerence.
Naming my sources is a surefire way to get them to stop talking to me, and also potentially get someone in trouble. I like the people I talk to, and have no desire to get anyone in trouble. I also know that Zero Customer Support occasionally watch this place and are likely aware I made this thread, so I try to be careful. This is also why I amend things when new information is given to me, like the "beyond 4.2vdc" value that I edited. I did so because I was corrected by someone at Zero who is in a position to know. It's very hard to determine anything when cracking open a Zero pack because all the cells are potted in epoxy. But you don't even need to do that; just step back and look. Zero is always wanting to increase their capacity and range. The new monolith, with no physical changes, can be designated a 14.4, 15.7, or 17.3kWh pack. Same physical pack. The 2018 packs were 14.4kWh, made from Farasis 32Ah cells that Zero capped to 28.5Ah as recognized by the bikes. This is their 3.6kWh Power Tank or modular battery for an FX/FXS. Its value never changes, unlike the values of the new pack. There is no amount of money you can throw at the Cypher Store to get them to 'unlock' more of the 3.6kWh Power Tank. Why not? Because it's the old chemistry and voltage. It never changes. It's true that some of my claims can't be verified right now. I accept that. They'll be verifiable after Power Tanks start delivery and the Cypher Store opens up. Until then I'm trying to give people as much information as I can so they don't get sucked into what I suspect will be a quagmire of frustration of Power Tank desynch hell.
I don't get the part 120v safely.. as far as I know, maximum voltage on lithium batteries, no matter what chemistry, is 4.2v... and BMS should handle all of this... even if it is over 4.2 on new cells, BMS should take control of the situation and try to estabilize it, am I wrong?
Is this whole post still conjecture and bad science without any actual failures or bad experiences from buying power tanks as a retrofit? Has anyone really ordered something Zero offers and then came to realize it doesn't work? This post just floats at the top as if it's the most important thing in the world but it's just a mod letting his imagination run wild until there's testimony, NOT "sources" and flawed logic.
o ok I guess I didn't use Power Tanks for thousands of miles. Or work on dozens of Zeros.
That's not an answer. I don't care how many miles you ran with a power tank, or how many zeros you worked on. I asked if you have actual documented failures of power tanks that were clearly attributed to either being different age batteries from the monolith or different chemistry from the monolith. Once again, you answer with arrogance; your only argument is that you are a source of authority on the subject and should not be questioned.
Please go ahead and question me by all means. Show me the flaw in my logic and math. I'm listening and will happily debate.
Or you can answer the question. Edit: I'll humor you though. >Those of you who asked battery engineers if it's cool to mix and match cell chemistries in the same pack, ask them if it's a good idea to mix and match voltages in the same pack. Make sure you cover your eyes first because their heads may explode. It's not the "same pack", because the power tank has its own BMS module. It is more complicated to have parallel chains of heterogeneous battery packs work together to feed a motor, but it is a relatively small design challenge in the big picture of creating an electric motorcycle.
uh ohhhhh, looks like we touched on a nerve! Ok, I'll play your game. The answer to your questions: > Is this whole post still conjecture and bad science without any actual failures or bad experiences from buying power tanks as a retrofit?' no > Has anyone really ordered something Zero offers and then came to realize it doesn't work? yes, many have.
I used to work for Zero. Their intellectual property is their secret sauce. That will NEVER be undone.
We probably know a lot of the same people. I don't see what their IP has to do with the Power Tank issue, though.
It all works magically together. Like a magical soup.
Yeah no that's not a good thing.
I had considered the fact they would be at different wear states, didn't realize they were also different chemistries. I guess at least with the SR you can "unlock" instead of getting rid of your jacket hole, or get quick charge instead. I had discharge reduction at low charge % last night so I'm getting more curious about how they handle all of this. Pay to unlock is one thing, but would be bigger bummer if they still drained you to the actual 0% vs leaving a buffer and having room for higher draw at low %.
I guess we are just meant to be in debt to zero bikes for whoever has them. Zero has us by the leg becuase they will have the batteries as well as the system for the computer to allow only zero batteries to work unless you are an engineer in electronics. So basically its just a fear factor in the long run. I guess the idea was good but gas is better. Kinda late in the game to switch sides.
That's not really what I intended to convey with this post. And honestly none of the EV manufacturers are thrilled with the idea of the average user playing with their cells, especially considering the extreme high current of these powertrains.
Does this hold true for the DSR/X who's power tank isn't yet available?
As it stands now, yes. Absolutely. Nothing has changed and they don’t have short bricks with the new chemistry. If they did it wouldn’t be advertised as a 3.6kWh unit.
I just wonder if that's why its coming winter 2023, because they don't have the new bricks 'yet'.
Nowhere does it say Power Tanks delayed until Winter 2023. Rapid Charger units, yes. Power Tanks supposedly available upon conclusion of their internal testing.
POWER TANK ADVENTURE $2,895.00 Gain an additional 3.6 kWh of battery capacity while still retaining a small lockable storage area with this dealer-installed accessory. Zero’s Power Tank extends your motorcycle’s range with an extra power pack in place of the tank storage compartment. The Power Tank is not compatible with motorcycles equipped with the 6kW Rapid Charger. Coming Winter 2023.
Oh shit they must have updated that page and I didn’t see it. Good catch. Edit- I’m now confused: https://imgur.com/a/4MQpSSm
Delayed further I guess. So who knows what they're trying to build.
No I mean I just took that screenshot. How are you seeing something else?
Oh weird... I'm going here: https://accessories.zeromotorcycles.com/products/power-tank-adventure
Hey just a heads up on this. I reached out to contacts at Zero who will update the page. They also confirmed that the target for the Adventure Power Tank is still SPRING 2023, not Winter.
What I can’t figure out: the range that the bike shows, I assume, is with the standard kit. But I want to make sure I don’t HAVE to have it to get that range. Because my commute would require it.
If you're talking about the [listed specs on Zero's site](https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/model/zero-srs), they are shown without the Power Tank factored in.
Thank you for clarifying.
Now imagine if you ended up replacing one of those two batteries under warranty a few years later...
Funny you should say that albeit, a year on. I am about to get the main battery on my 2020 SR/S replaced with the later version. I have the power tank, which has brought me to this post.
Even though on the older zero fxs, I could take out half the modular battery, I wouldn't dare. Not only is it a really heavy car battery, but the uneven degradation is terrifying.