daveinva
05-15-2014, 07:11 PM
A few days old, I just caught this today:
http://www.gizmag.com/zero-sr-2014-electric-motorcycle-review-test-ride/32015/
I have yet to try an electric bike, mostly because I don't want to be tempted to buy something at a price I can't justify paying. :shocked:
Yet, the price will continue to come down as the tech gets better. As the review notes, in only a few years, Zero has made extremely impressive progress in range and power. That progress might not continue at the same rate-- who knows where this tech will top out?-- but I assume we're still going to see major improvements in the next few years.
Which got me to thinking: we all remember BRP dangling the hybrid Spyder at us. Some of the more practical readers here all assumed, rightly I believe, that the hybrid was a marketing stunt, a bone BRP tossed to the Canadian government, "See! We're trying to be green!" But in reality, they were never going to actually put such a thing into production.
Because, let's be honest, there's no true market for the hybrid. Sure, we all want greater range, but most of us who would place a premium on touring range are likely more than satisfied by the improvements delivered by the new 3-cylinder in the RT. Those who aren't, those of us who still demand even more tank range, would also have to intersect with the people who would pay the premium price a hybrid would demand. Unless the engine had significant *performance* improvements in addition to range improvements, again, what would it offer over a 1330 that would justify the price increase? RT's are already too expensive as they are.
But, then I thought-- the *RS*, chosen as the hybrid concept platform, isn't a touring bike. Few potential owners want or need hybrid mileage on the RS. Sure, plenty of us (this author included) happily tour on the RS, we have even spent oodles of money to improve the touring capability of the RS. But ultimately, we all accept that it's a compromise-- even moreso now that the ST has been introduced. And many of us early RS tourers have moved in time to the RT and ST as we realized how much better those vehicles were at touring, especially so now with the 1330 engine.
Now, one way I've always thought the RS would eventually come to differentiate itself from its brethren is by debuting a tilting architecture. I still think this is the most likely evolution for the Spyder: the RS will become the crazy tilting sport trike, while the ST and RT will mature the non-tilting platform.
But what if BRP decided instead to make the RS an *electric* bike? Forget the mileage bonuses delivered by the hybrid-- you don't need that on a "toy bike". Likewise, the inherent range limitations of a battery pack-- at some point, you have to stop and charge, sometimes for a long time-- are mitigated by the nature of the vehicle. If you want touring range, get an ST or an RT, you have that option available if touring is most important to you.
But if you want a completely different riding experience, get the electric RS, with all the benefits of an electric bike: instant, MASSIVE torque, near-silent operation, infinite performance re-programability. And with its size, you can put plenty more battery packs into an RS than you can on a two-wheeler. Heck, you can even pack a rapid charger into the frunk!
And since the RS isn't appealing to the touring crowd, you can cater more to the urban riders-- the folks who commute on their Spyders, who may not need the cheap *range* of a hybrid, but still want the cheap *price* of operating an electric vehicle. And want something totally unique that caters to *them*, that doesn't make the RS the Spyder you buy if you can't afford an ST or RT.
Anyway... just musing here, but the more I think about it, the more this makes too much sense to me. There's *no marketable reason* to make the RS (unlike the ST or RT) a hybrid, but I can totally argue for it to be *electric*.
:thumbup: :D
http://www.gizmag.com/zero-sr-2014-electric-motorcycle-review-test-ride/32015/
I have yet to try an electric bike, mostly because I don't want to be tempted to buy something at a price I can't justify paying. :shocked:
Yet, the price will continue to come down as the tech gets better. As the review notes, in only a few years, Zero has made extremely impressive progress in range and power. That progress might not continue at the same rate-- who knows where this tech will top out?-- but I assume we're still going to see major improvements in the next few years.
Which got me to thinking: we all remember BRP dangling the hybrid Spyder at us. Some of the more practical readers here all assumed, rightly I believe, that the hybrid was a marketing stunt, a bone BRP tossed to the Canadian government, "See! We're trying to be green!" But in reality, they were never going to actually put such a thing into production.
Because, let's be honest, there's no true market for the hybrid. Sure, we all want greater range, but most of us who would place a premium on touring range are likely more than satisfied by the improvements delivered by the new 3-cylinder in the RT. Those who aren't, those of us who still demand even more tank range, would also have to intersect with the people who would pay the premium price a hybrid would demand. Unless the engine had significant *performance* improvements in addition to range improvements, again, what would it offer over a 1330 that would justify the price increase? RT's are already too expensive as they are.
But, then I thought-- the *RS*, chosen as the hybrid concept platform, isn't a touring bike. Few potential owners want or need hybrid mileage on the RS. Sure, plenty of us (this author included) happily tour on the RS, we have even spent oodles of money to improve the touring capability of the RS. But ultimately, we all accept that it's a compromise-- even moreso now that the ST has been introduced. And many of us early RS tourers have moved in time to the RT and ST as we realized how much better those vehicles were at touring, especially so now with the 1330 engine.
Now, one way I've always thought the RS would eventually come to differentiate itself from its brethren is by debuting a tilting architecture. I still think this is the most likely evolution for the Spyder: the RS will become the crazy tilting sport trike, while the ST and RT will mature the non-tilting platform.
But what if BRP decided instead to make the RS an *electric* bike? Forget the mileage bonuses delivered by the hybrid-- you don't need that on a "toy bike". Likewise, the inherent range limitations of a battery pack-- at some point, you have to stop and charge, sometimes for a long time-- are mitigated by the nature of the vehicle. If you want touring range, get an ST or an RT, you have that option available if touring is most important to you.
But if you want a completely different riding experience, get the electric RS, with all the benefits of an electric bike: instant, MASSIVE torque, near-silent operation, infinite performance re-programability. And with its size, you can put plenty more battery packs into an RS than you can on a two-wheeler. Heck, you can even pack a rapid charger into the frunk!
And since the RS isn't appealing to the touring crowd, you can cater more to the urban riders-- the folks who commute on their Spyders, who may not need the cheap *range* of a hybrid, but still want the cheap *price* of operating an electric vehicle. And want something totally unique that caters to *them*, that doesn't make the RS the Spyder you buy if you can't afford an ST or RT.
Anyway... just musing here, but the more I think about it, the more this makes too much sense to me. There's *no marketable reason* to make the RS (unlike the ST or RT) a hybrid, but I can totally argue for it to be *electric*.
:thumbup: :D