Real World Battery Range

[SlowRider]

I am curious what everyone's real world battery range is?

I think we all understand that range is hugely dependent on various factor, none more important than the actual speed you are riding with. Nevertheless, I saw some comments here and elsewhere where people reported very high numbers, compared to what I am seeing, so it might be interesting to see what other CCS users are getting.

I have been keeping track of my rides with a GPS app ("Ridewithgps) so I have pretty good handle on my average speed as well as elevation gain is.
My stats on average are as follows:
- Me: 6' 2 1/2", 190lbs, 53 years;
- have been bike commuting on a regular bike for two years, so somewhat fit
- I try to rid with significant pedal input for a light/medium workout enough for me to want to shower when I arrive
- Average Speed: approx. 19 mph (top speed typically 32mph); GPS app excluded stops, so this is based on riding time only
- Elevation gain: my regular commute has approx.. 500 ft on a 7 mile trip ; max grade is 8.4% (short climb)
- Normally I use assist level 2, use the throttle on red lights and shift occasionally on hills to assist level 3.
- Based on the readouts on the LCD display, I use approx. 18-19 Wh/mile.
- Theoretically, I should get around 32-35 miles with the 12.8Ah battery.

For my regular commute (14 miles roundtrip) I normally charge daily. The other day I went one day without charging and barely made it home on the second day (first day was super windy though...). So 30 miles is about all I am getting with my 12.8 battery.

 

[DanInStPete]

I’m 6’4”, 220lbs. I’ve been riding almost the same daily ride for exercise since I got my CCS a few weeks ago. It’s between 19.4 and 21.4 miles, and I use between 315 and 385 watt hours with the 12.8 battery.

Today was 21.4 and 385, leaving me with 230 in the tank. Would I have made 30 miles? I was riding into 20mph winds a lot of the time and was using level 3 to maintain 17-18 mph at one point (and I LOVE that I can do that!!!).

I’d say my range on this bike with the 12.8, riding it how I want to ride it (usually cruising 21-23mph) is 30-35 miles depending on conditions.

 

[JRA]

Between 15wh/mi and 20 is a good average considering all factors above. Avg. speeds higher than 20 I figure 1 wh/mi per.

 

[Asher]

First full day of owning my bike, 37.9 miles, 358 watts, 9.4 watts per mile. On the last segment, I was only on Eco mode, and minimal use of throttle, it was 122 watts, 14 miles, 8.7 watts per mile (though the mileage was rounded from Google maps).

I'm 6',1", 180 lbs. Had around 10 lbs additional gear.

 

[DanInStPete]

Wow @Asher that range is impressive. Any idea what your speed was?

I slowed it down today to see what I could get out of it.

Eco Mode
Flat terrain
Wind 5-10 MPH
Speed 16-21 depending on wind

21.2 Miles
257 Wh
12.1Wh/Mile

That's as good as I can do and still be at a moderate exercise pace.

 

[Asher]

I think I do like 21-22 mph on flats with Eco, but I pedal pretty hard. Not sprinting, but vigorous by most standards. Not a competitive cyclist though I do barbell squat frequently if that matters, 225+ for reps.

I had to slow down a little for the last segment because I was going through a bike path with no external lighting, in a place where people have been mugged in the past.


I don't quite understand how assist modulates power. As in, does it provide more or less power when you pedal harder?

 

[DanInStPete]

More force to the pedal gives you more power. Cadence is used in the algorithm also, but I don’t know how.

I’d love to hear from someone who knows more about this. I posted a question before about how much power the motor is giving back but didn’t get an answer.

 

[SlowRider]

I think I do like 21-22 mph on flats with Eco, but I pedal pretty hard. Not sprinting, but vigorous by most standards. Not a competitive cyclist though I do barbell squat frequently if that matters, 225+ for reps.

I had to slow down a little for the last segment because I was going through a bike path with no external lighting, in a place where people have been mugged in the past.


I don't quite understand how assist modulates power. As in, does it provide more or less power when you pedal harder?

One of the big surprises for me was how "low" my average speed truly was when measured with a GPS app. By just looking at the speedometer I would have guessed that I am easily in the 25mph range, because that's the speed I seemed to be most often. But once you take into consideration that you have to slow-down when you approach a light or intersection or you have joggers or other riders on a trail and you have to accelerate afterwards again than it's more understandable. I only had two rides where my measured speed was above 20mph.

 

[Asher]

One leg of my ride averaged 19 mph all in, mostly along separated bike paths with no stops.

The 22 mph is what the speedometer says in motion on Eco.

 

[Bruce Arnold]

We're all pretty interested in range/battery usage, and a lot of us have gathered some data. I'm currently doing a series of tests where I ride from 5-10 miles, keeping it as close to 15 mph as possible, on a level course, on a large loop that pretty much nullifies the effect of wind (whatever wind there is will be from front, rear, and both sides at some point along the loop.) But that's me, with my weight, with my gear, with my tires at my pressure, with the bike set up my way. So many variables. All of our data, captured as best we can, is useful and interesting, but short of putting the bike with the same rider, indoors, on a dynamometer, we'll always have variations.

In regard to the Real World battery stats on Juiced Bikes' site, I have two conclusions: (1) They have reported their findings accurately; (2) like EPA gasoline mileage ratings, they optimized everything they could prior to running the test.

Too bad Court, or someone like him, doesn't have a dynamometer, so we could get data more useful for comparison.

 

[Asher]

Wind won't be totally nullified from a loop, due to loss of energy from rolling resistance.

 

[Bruce Arnold]

Wind won't be totally nullified from a loop, due to loss of energy from rolling resistance.

I don't follow you. What does rolling resistance have to do with wind? That's a measure of the tire's friction on the pavement, and wouldn't change whether there was wind or not. It would change with tire pressure, which I tried to keep constant.

 

[tomjasz]

Worst I ever see is 1 mile per Ah with heavy throttle use. Mellower is better. On my 36V at 15MPH I get near 30 miles on a 13Ah battery. Ah aren't really the right measurement but they provide a fair rule of thumb. The "hurrier" you go the more you burn.

 

[tomjasz]

I don't follow you. What does rolling resistance have to do with wind? That's a measure of the tire's friction on the pavement, and wouldn't change whether there was wind or not. It would change with tire pressure, which I tried to keep constant.

Loer rolling resistance improves wind resistance, No?

 

[Asher]

I don't follow you. What does rolling resistance have to do with wind? That's a measure of the tire's friction on the pavement, and wouldn't change whether there was wind or not. It would change with tire pressure, which I tried to keep constant.

Maybe I should hold my tongue since I'm not a physicist but I figure that the energy transfer from wind at your back is not 100% due to increased rolling resistance at higher speeds. And air drag hurts further at higher speeds.

Put differently, a 5 mph tailwind isn't as helpful as a 5 mph headwind is hurtful to energy conservation. So you'd want zero wind to truly test Juiced claims.

 

[Chris Hammond]

Maybe I should hold my tongue since I'm not a physicist but I figure that the energy transfer from wind at your back is not 100% due to increased rolling resistance at higher speeds. And air drag hurts further at higher speeds.

Put differently, a 5 mph tailwind isn't as helpful as a 5 mph headwind is hurtful to energy conservation. So you'd want zero wind to truly test Juiced claims.

This concept also applies to hills. The idea of "what goes up, must come down" is true, but you expend more energy climbing than you can recoup coming back down. Damn laws of thermodynamics make this an inevitable truth regardless of mode of transport. In essence, hills and wind are the same thing; something that affects the resistance to movement (aka friction). Thus, even though when they are in your favor, (tailwind or downhill), the reduction in friction cannot replace the energy that was lost as heat in overcoming the increased friction while fighting them going against you.

 

[Chris Hammond]

More force to the pedal gives you more power. Cadence is used in the algorithm also, but I don’t know how.

I’d love to hear from someone who knows more about this. I posted a question before about how much power the motor is giving back but didn’t get an answer.

So, I was reading some Q&A on Juiced site a while back, I don't remember exactly what page, but it was talking about possible causes of overheating the motor/ controller. One of the possible causes listed was a "very fit rider riding hard for a long period". In essence, pedalling hard tells the torque sensor to provide maximum assistance at a given setting level. Thus increasing Amps flowing through.
As a side note, the page also mentioned that overheating is unlikely to be a problem in newer bikes, (IIRC those built since late 2016), because Tora changed the design to improve thermal efficiency and heat dissipation. Must be working, as I have never read any posts complaining about heat problems.

 

[Bruce Arnold]

Maybe I should hold my tongue since I'm not a physicist but I figure that the energy transfer from wind at your back is not 100% due to increased rolling resistance at higher speeds. And air drag hurts further at higher speeds.

Put differently, a 5 mph tailwind isn't as helpful as a 5 mph headwind is hurtful to energy conservation. So you'd want zero wind to truly test Juiced claims.

I'm not sure I agree with this as I'm not sure that rolling resistance increases with speed. Could be. However, here's the main point:

We're not doing laboratory studies here. We're gathering some information, presenting it as intelligently as we may, to benefit fellow riders thinking about the same issues. For that purpose, the effect of wind is nullified by the way I gathered the data.

It's like the old joke about engineering vs. science. Two men, a scientist and an engineer, are recruited for a psychology test. They are put at one end of the college gymnasium. At the other end are two attractive women. The subjects are told that both women are willing to be kissed. To get there they are told that first they would walk half the distance to the other end of the gym, then half of that, then half of that, and so on. The engineer walks to the other end and kisses the girl. The scientist never gets started. When questioned by the psychologist running the test, the scientist explains that under those conditions he could never arrive at the other end because there would always be half the distance to go. The engineer says "I got close enough to kiss the girl."

This is the phrase my wife and I use to describe similar situations: "close enough to kiss the girl." And it applies here.

 

[keithd]

This concept also applies to hills. The idea of "what goes up, must come down" is true, but you expend more energy climbing than you can recoup coming back down. Damn laws of thermodynamics make this an inevitable truth regardless of mode of transport. In essence, hills and wind are the same thing; something that affects the resistance to movement (aka friction). Thus, even though when they are in your favor, (tailwind or downhill), the reduction in friction cannot replace the energy that was lost as heat in overcoming the increased friction while fighting them going against you.

Here is a guy who believes that going uphill should not be harder than flats.

https://www.cyclingabout.com/hills-are-not-harder-than-cycling-on-the-flat/

 

[Chris Hammond]

Here is a guy who believes that going uphill should not be harder than flats.

https://www.cyclingabout.com/hills-are-not-harder-than-cycling-on-the-flat/

As a resident of Utah, I can safely say "BS". The authors point may be valid for shorter hills that are not very steep. However, for prolonged climbing, you are going to work harder. Long climbs are relentless, if you don't keep pedaling you stop almost immediately. This is not true on flats, you can provide yourself small breaks at any time on the flats by reducing your effort or just coasting. However, when you are on a long slow climb in 1st gear going < 6 mph, your only way to get a break is to stop riding for a few.
There is local hill climb called "Little Cottonwood Canyon". The profile is strickingly similar to "L'Alp DeHuez". You start at 5000 ft elevation and end over 8,500 ft about 8 miles later. I have ridden it many times. Try it on a non ebike sometime and let me know what you think of the article you posted. Here's a profile map for reference: http://www.saltlakecycling.com/showride.php?rideID=1002