MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

Zero 2012: More Power, Range and Sleeker Styling

Zero S

For instance, they aren’t fast. They aren’t long-distance capable. They aren’t cheap.”

That’s what I wrote just seven months ago about Zero motorcycle’s 2011 product line. That’s because the battery-electric motorcycles had promise and were much improved over prior iterations, but still lacked the range, performance and value of even the smallest gas-powered motorcycle. Your comments after the story showed that MD readers found the bikes laughably slow, clumsily styled and overpriced.

Zero DS

So the press release we got from the Milan motorcycle show was pretty stunning. I’m hard-pressed to come up with another company that has responded to criticism and improved an entire lineup so quickly. For 2012, Zero’s motorcycles offer vastly improved range, speed, styling and battery life. Of course, these improvements have probably been in the pipeline for a year or more, but still; seven months? Say what you will about e-bikes, but for gasoline-powered motorcycles to make these kinds of advances in a little more than half a year would be considered nothing short of miraculous, and speaks to the potential of e-vehicles.

The most significant improvement is range. The “Z-Force” power pack still uses a lithium-ion battery, but the chemical composition has been reengineered to be 95 percent more energy-dense. There are two flavors; the 6 kilowatt-hour version has a 76-mile (using the EPA UDDS cycle) or 43-mile (at 70 mph) range, while the 9 kWh pack will go 114 miles around town or 63 miles on the highway. And either pack will take 3000 charge/discharge cycles before it is depleted to 80 percent of its charge capacity–for the 9 kWh pack that means 308,000 miles. Charging time is 6 hours (or 9 for the bigger battery) with the included onboard charger, but an accessory quick charger can drop that time to less than two hours.

Zero X

I wasn’t too impressed with the Zero S supermoto and DS dual sport’s top speed, but that may change the next time I ride one. Zero’s claimed top speed for the 2012 S is now a blazing and illegal 88 mph–the DS will do 80. That’s thanks to upgraded maintenance-free, air-cooled brushless motors that also add regenerative braking to help charge the battery pack.

The chassis and styling was improved for 2011, thanks to the hiring of former Buell engineer Abe Ashkenazi and other moto-industry help, but it was still lacking, with the bikes looking more wonky and electric-bicycle than serious motorcycles. For 2012, the bodywork was re-done, with smoother, more flowing lines and closer attention paid to finish and colors. The welded aluminum frame was also tweaked to have passenger-carrying ability (with the purchase of optional accessories) and better handling. Stylish 17-inch cast wheels are also now standard on the S, and a new headlight and turnsignals complete the look. Weight is still pretty manageable, even with the big 9 kWh battery–ready-to-ride, the 6 is 297 pounds, 341 for the 9 in both the S and DS configurations.

Zero S

Other Zero models benefit from upgrades, too. The short-range, 221-pound XU I rode in March gets its performance bumped up–it can now hit 65 mph and go 42 miles on the UDDS cycle or 28 miles at a steady 55 mph. The dirt lineup includes the 213-pound X trailbike (which is equipped for highway use) and the high-jumping, 200-pound MX motocrosser. All three models (XU, X and MX) get a 3 kWh battery which is good for an hour or two of trail riding, or in the case of the street-legal X, 38 miles of pavement use on the UDDS cycle.

What hasn’t been addressed is value. The S and DS go up in price to $11,495 (add $2500 for the 9 kWh battery pack), and the X and MX are now priced at $9495 ($2000 more for the X, same price for the MX). The XU gets a $300 price drop, despite the huge increases in range and performance, as well as the addition of a clean, quiet belt final drive and other improvements. That’s a lot of money for performance that, even with manifold improvements, would still be bested by a poorly-tuned Kawasaki Ninja 250. Still, federal and state tax credits and rebates can slice a sizeable portion (up to $5000 or more) off the hangtag, and if you think of the savings– at $4 a gallon, a 40-mpg motorcycle would require about $30,000 of gasoline to go 300,000 miles–$12,000 might start to seem cheap.

It might not be enough to impress most MD readers, but as I wrote in my prior Zero report, the mission isn’t to woo experienced enthusiasts off their gas-powered steeds. It’s to attract non-riding folks who want to explore a cleaner, greener, easier way to get around. With as much as 114 miles of range and an 88 mph top speed, Zero may have a product to appeal to a few thousand adventurous consumers a year. And that’s all it will take to keep this small company growing and innovating. Imagine what another 10 years of advances in battery technology might bring.

Zero XU

68 Comments

  1. ERic says:

    I have tested 2 Zero’s and 1 Brammo in the last year – all were lame and very slow compared to the 1993 Honda XL 200 I rode to the tests on – and the test rides were out in the suburbs – 35 miles from the centre of the city where I live – I would not have made it there and back on any electric…but I made it on 1 gallon of gasoline, available almost everywhere…
    The Zeros that I rode were 50%+ down on charge after a ten minute, throttle pinned wfo test ride… these bikes are slow, with really dangerously weak brakes – the old school drum brakes on my old XL were twice as powerful…and the rock hard tires didn’t have as much cornering grip as the dual purpose semi-knobby tires on my little XL…and the steering geometry was somehow just wrong feeling… As was the crummy suspension – Now that KTM is in the e-bike game, I look forward to trying an electric built by a real motorcycle manufacturer, that knows how to make one feel and perform more like a real motorcycle.

  2. eric says:

    I think it might sell better in “mega scooter” form since city dwellers (for commuting) and those who don’t care about image are likely buyers (oh, and with money to actually buy one). Or how about a 3 wheeled version for poeple who are scars of 2 whelers. could fit a larger battery and have storage space. Ccost and weight wouddl go up and range would likely go down (to keep a sane price – can’t have a battery much larger than 9kwhr) though…

  3. Justin says:

    So it sound like these types of batteries aren’t good for leaving on a trickle charger. That would seem ill-advised for these types of bikes. If I had one, I’d want to be able to just leave it plugged in when not using it and be able to assume it was 100% charged and ready to go when I’m ready to ride. If the battery were to lose juice over time but I can’t trickle charge the thing to keep it topped up, then some other battery type would seem to be a better solution.

  4. william says:

    What I want more information on is the regenerative braking. In mountain areas you often go up and down quite a bit. It seems like the regen braking would provide some slowing of the wheel like compression braking on a gas bike. That would be nice, as well as some charging. I wonder how effective it is at actually providing some useful charging though. I quess anything is better than nothing, but I would like to see more detail on it. It’s a neat concept.

  5. Motorhead says:

    The thing I don’t see is how much electricity is required to run the charger? What is the everage electric cost to charge a unit like this every day and how does that compare to fuel at the cost of 3.50 per gallon on a bike that gets 40 mpg?

    • william says:

      Their web page has that info in the specifications. Depending on the battery capacity for the various bikes, .32, .63, or .95 dollar to full charge. They list some equivalent fuel milages, in mpg, 267, 480.

  6. MarkF says:

    I guess just not for me. The speed and range would be great, on a scooter. I might even buy one if it had traditional styling, like a Vespa. But even a TU250 style commuter I would rather have a gas bike with the range and easy of refuel. Sorry…

  7. william says:

    By reading some of these posts I ask myself why develop anything new ever. It sounds like people just want the same old boring thing year after year. Hey but wait, when that happens they complain. I am glad not everyone thinks like some of these posts. I like my microwave oven, but posts here lead me to believe people would have said the old oven works just fine, why make a different one.

    A 220 pound dirtbike that can go 42 miles of trails, hey thats not bad. That will actually do the job for a lot of riders. The current 250 offroad versions are 30 pounds heavier. It still uses smaller diameter wheels though, not so good for the rough stuff, but smoother ground it wouldn’t matter so much. With those numbers the offroad bike is looking promissing, yay for progress and something new!

    I think the only ugly version is the dirt models with that quick change battery sitting right in the middle. The quick change sounded like a good idea but batteries are expensive. Better for me to give the bike a larger battery.

  8. Artoo says:

    The styling is odd. They don’t even need a gas tank so I don’t see the point on that plastic piece that sort-of looks like one. Why not make a real compartment to carry stuff shaped like a gas tank? It would improve both looks and practicality. Also the S needs some bags and a windscreen.

    I do see a lot of good uses for these bikes, but mostly two: One, for city short runs, splitting lanes (where permitted) going to work, etc; and two, for riding in nature. Forests, mountains, dirt trails, near rivers and lakes, around campgrounds, and so forth. Those places will be far more enjoyable for both the rider and other campers with quiet, non-polluting machines.
    Also, if you work in a farm, nature preserve, national park, etc. These would be ideal, with a minimal impact on the environment and very quiet riding (even more so now with the belt drive).

    For any other use like super sport riding, long trips, adventure touring or universal use the gas machines still rule, but who knows if that will change?

  9. Jim Bow says:

    Well as an owner of a gas powered bike the only thing holding me back would be the cost, I find the bikes looks agreable actually better than many gas bikes. Performance and range is getting very realistic for many applications and 88mph is not an issue better the bike to limit what I seem unable to ;o]. This is not a touring bike and never will be but an excellent urban commuter which is what I own now and unlike all the 20k smells like leather show pieces I see twice a month in the work parking lot, I actually ride mine about 8k anually back and forth to work 42miles RT. I was considering the zero but cost and range was pushing it so I bought a 250cc dual sport instead. With all the rebates and incentives, it be much closer call now for sure. Now all I need is a better price on a flir unit as my riding season got cut short by a large doe, and as much as I like riding that really wasn’t much fun 4 broken ribs and a shoulder that is a little tweeked too. Might be more broken ribs but I never saw the doe’s xray and now my bike smells like leather too.

    BTW I’m not some green Al Gore worshiping goof either, I just like innovation and would rather not send my money to some Arab radical that can’t tell a sky scraper from a runway and this is made in the US of A.

  10. Morris Bethoven says:

    Seems to me that they should have taken some of those development dollars and hired a TALENTED designer to pen these machines. It’s hard to sell bikes like these that cost over $10,000 and it’s even harder to sell overpriced UGLY bikes! Really now, who are they trying to fool? I guess “non-riders” (the group they’re targeting) don’t have any aesthetic appreciation?

  11. DynoSoar says:

    If their ‘engineers’ think a motocross seat is designed for sitting on, I wonder if all the other components are similarly fit for purpose.

  12. Steve D says:

    “but for gasoline-powered motorcycles to make these kinds of advances in a little more than half a year would be considered nothing short of miraculous, and speaks to the potential of e-vehicles.”

    Ya might want to ease off the hype just a bit. It’s a brand new genre and technology. OF COURSE there will be big jumps. Give it 20 years and I’m sure it will be as stagnant as ICE bikes. Or aircraft or cars..

  13. Tom R says:

    “Another step forward for Zero, but with up to $5,000 of our tax dollars per machine I guess I still throw up a little in my mouth.”

    I felt this way about the issue of subsidies as well until I recalled a bit of elementary school history lessons. Remember “40 acres and a mule”, and that big railroads were given great amounts of public land in an effort to encourage westward expansion of the U.S. during the 1800s? Even the brave western pioneers needed some taxpayer supported prodding to mitigate the risk of (literally) striking out into new territory. Government-sponsored innovation has been happening for a long time.

  14. 39 y/o says:

    I wonder how many of the 45 commentators so far have actually ridden any of Zero’s bikes BEFORE giving their in-depth review.

    Demo’ed Zero bikes twice, as well as the first gen Brammo. Would love to try the MX model.

    Loved them all. They serve a niche, like all of powersports & Motorcycling in general (in USA).

    Owners of BMW GS & HD Ultra Classics can rest assured Zero is not encroaching on your domain…..

  15. MGNorge says:

    “It’s to attract non-riding folks who want to explore a cleaner, greener, easier way to get around”

    As it is also with gas engined bikes designed for other than long-time experienced motorcyclists, this is the wrong type of blog to review such a bike. These bikes generally get ripped to shreds by the posters here and elsewhere. They do not fit the scope of what most here want and desire and therefore get trashed. I like reading about and understanding the evolving technologies but it’s obvious so many don’t. This might be better received if reviewed in a non-enthusiast magazine or blog.

    • Ruefus says:

      Basically, these bikes should be viewed and reviewed by people who have no idea what they’re looking at.

      Gotcha.

  16. Ruefus says:

    To me, these bikes are answers to questions no one is asking. Just like the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. Neat exercises but little more.

    With range so highly dependent on velocity and even riding style (quick starter vs. lolly-gagger has a HUGE affect on battery life) and max ranges at the bottom rung of acceptable when ridden ‘correctly’, I just don’t get it. None of these bikes could be termed versatile. They look like KTM design rejects. (harsh….but fair IMHO)

    Then there’s the argument that all you’ve done with electric vehicles is move the waste up the supply chain and over their lifetime time that they actually pollute more. I’m not attempting to make a political statement or even an argument out of this. I just don’t get it. This is not the revolutionary switch from horses to vehicles that took place. This is the same mode powered differently.

    Stuff like this seems born more out of crisis of conscience than need. In which case, get over yourselves and lets look for viable long-term solutions.

    Just my opinion. It is worth what you paid to read it.

  17. tron says:

    The problem I see with most things of this sort is lots of talk about ‘potential’, ‘improved’, ‘progress’ but the bottom line is that if they can’t build a product that people will buy, and buy right now, they’re not going to be around long enough to develop anything any better.
    Doesn’t sound like they are producing anything that too many people are going to buy at this time.

  18. Greg says:

    I think it would (will) be fun to ride a silent bike. Motor hum, drivetrain, rubber-on-road and, of course, wind would be the sound track. I’d buy all new riding gear to look like something out of a future-themed B-movie, and I would maraud accordingly. For about 1 hour. But ohhhh, that will be a quality hour…

  19. william says:

    Nice bike upgrades. I think the looks have improved. It has some style now instead of the basic white no style original version. I wonder how the center of gravity and rotational inertia compare to a 300 pound gas dualsport bike. It looks like the electric motor would have less spinning mass than the gas bike, that would make it more flickable and less heavy feeling on the move. The gas bikes usually put the gas tank way up high, but most of the motor is pretty low. E-bike has the battery through the whole frame area. So I cannot really tell how the center of gravity compares. E-bike easier to pick up when it is laying on its side in the mud?

  20. Russell T. says:

    Nice to see the all round improvements toward a real world vehicle. I’m sticking with my internal combustion and pedal power two-wheelers for now. Is anyone doing a natural gas bike? Have you seen the Magnolia?

    Anyway, the S does look like a really fun commuter.

    Dear Santa…

  21. e-bob says:

    My DR650 has a range of about 140 mi. with the stock 3.4 gal. tank, slightly less in city or aggressive mountain driving, so the Zero DS is getting closer to that standard. Still, the only practical application for a long while will be as city/commuter bikes–unless someone builds out the infrastructure to have a network of quick-charging stations less than 200 miles apart, and reduce charging times to something reasonable like 15 minutes. I’m speaking from the perspective of a Westerner; even with the DR I have to be careful to plan gas stops if I’m straying from the Interstate, which is most of the time.

  22. Southerner says:

    The point is, they’re going in the right direction. These are definitely better in every way than the previous models, except price, which is not surprising. I’d say a 150 mile range, so you could commute out and back without recharging, and with enough extra capacity to stop and do a couple of errands, will be the tipping point on range.

    As to practicality, people are still buying hybrid cars, which are more expensive and don’t get much better mileage than comparable class ICE cars, even from the same manufacturer. My point is that there are people who will buy them without checking the details, just so they can be “green.”

  23. ben says:

    I am not interested in electric vehicles regardless of range and performance, and I will ride/buy one when pigs fly.. Just my .02

  24. tiremelter says:

    Build an Orange and black version… that may help for collectors.

  25. Vroooom says:

    Getting closer to that 100 mile range, 100 mph top speed I’ve been waiting for.

  26. mxs says:

    About the advancements …. I wonder about the people who bought ver. 1, Let’s say they are on ver. 3, with duplicated range …. is there any upgrade path for these people? Is an incremental / modular upgrade even possible?

    You really have to have a lot of spare cash to go into such a purchase without hurting when a new version comes out a year or less later. Crazy.

  27. ROXX says:

    Good Lord that is ugly regardless of statistics or range or green, or anything else.
    I need to go wash my eyes out now, be back in a few…..

    • ROXX says:

      I am really curious, has ZERO received any tax payer subsidies? I sure hope not.

      • zore says:

        Maybe we read different articles?

        “while the 9 kWh pack will go 114 miles around town or 63 miles on the highway. And either pack will take 3000 charge/discharge cycles before it is depleted to 80 percent of its charge capacity–for the 9 kWh pack that means 308,000 miles. Charging time is 6 hours ”

        I’m reading that as after 308000 miles on the 9kWh pack, you would have 80% of the range.

      • Harvey Mushman says:

        Yeah, I’d hate for theses cats to be getting government help like General Motors, Toyota or Harley Davidson.

  28. Timo says:

    I have a question that no one seems to touch on:

    If one of these ebikes has a range of say, 75 miles, but my daily communte is 45 miles, and so everyday I’m recharging after 45 miles, will this reduce battery life?

    Every other device I have that uses lithium batteries always recommend complete charge/discharge cycles for maximum battery life

    • Tim says:

      Great question.

      On a similar note, will the batteries behave like every laptop battery I’ve ever had? If so, witin the first year the range of these cycles will be down blocks instead of miles.

      • zore says:

        Maybe we read different articles?

        “while the 9 kWh pack will go 114 miles around town or 63 miles on the highway. And either pack will take 3000 charge/discharge cycles before it is depleted to 80 percent of its charge capacity–for the 9 kWh pack that means 308,000 miles. Charging time is 6 hours ”

        I’m reading that as after 308000 miles on the 9kWh pack, you would have 80% of the range.

        • Tim says:

          Yeah, yeah. I read that. Maybe we live in different realities? Lenovo says their batteries are good for thousands of charge cycles before they lose range, too. Manufacturers say things. Sometimes they aren’t completely forthright. Hence, my skepticism.

          • Chris says:

            The main thing is the chemisty and charge/discharge profile of the batteries. These bikes use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, which are well liked by rc hobbyists for their robustness and tolerance of abuse. This chemistry tends not to care how far down it’s discharged, charged, over amped, etc. (caused by their astounding resistance to heat; a lithium ion battery would be destroyed at about 180* Fahrenheit, while a lithium iron battery can reasonably stand up to about 300* Fahrenheit). Now, if you totally trash the battery, it will suffer internal damage, but this chemistry tends not to be as dramatically affected as lithium ion. As for why a laptop battery goes south after not too long: 1) cheap cells – because a laptop typically won’t drain as many amps as a motor application, the cells used are usually cheaper with higher internal resistance, which isn’t good for longevity. 2) unintentionally abusive charge/discharge cycles – leaving a lithium ion battery idle with a trickle charger is rather damaging to its internal structure; discharging too far also eats into its life. Most of this is from casual experience with multiple battery chemistries, so this may well be a crock of manure, but I encourage you to research into just how wrong I may be. I hope I helped; if not, let me know and I’ll retract my statements.

    • zore says:

      I believe you are thinking of the older Nickel–cadmium batteries that require a full discharge before a recharge if you want to get the most out of them. I some experience with lithium batteries in RC heli’s and fully discharging them will kill them and render them useless.

      http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries

    • Dave says:

      It depends on how much of the battery’s actual capacity the battery management system allows you to use. Lithium battery life is shortened by cycles that go nearer the edges of battery capacity, ie. best life is achieved by charging to below full and discharging to 10+% from empty. If they’re using the “whole” charge then you could theoretically see longer cycle life by half-charging.

      The advice to completely charge/discharge lithium is not quite right (again, dependent on how much of the battery’s capacity the device’s BMS allows it to access). That’s from the Ni-Cad/NiMh days. The best thing for Lipo is to use a lot of the charge, but not all.

  29. Scott says:

    The last paragraph of the article is still the problem. They may be trying to get non-riders on greener wheels but there is no utility in the designs. What will attract non-riders is ease of use and places to put items. Where do you put the grocery or clothing bag after stopping by a store? They are still novelty items. Even with the long range battery I still couldn’t make the round trip to the poser location in my area.

  30. randy says:

    I hate to ask this but where is the independent test that backs these performance numbers up? Reviews and press releases on ICE machines have pretty much given up any objective tests, why wouldn’t Zero just make some numbers up? I seem to remember other tests where the numbers didn’t seem to reflect the reviewer’s experience.

    So here is a comparison. My wife’s new SYM Wolf Classic 150 goes 70+ mph (reports of 80+ in reviews), gets 95 MPG, has a 300 mile range at 60 MPH, is so retro cute it hurts, and it was $3,200 OTD. And it’s a Cali bike with a CAT and air injection so the exhaust is clean enough you could use it as a space heater in a pinch. I would be interested in a life cycle analysis of just which is “cleaner, greener”.

    Another step forward for Zero, but with up to $5,000 of our tax dollars per machine I guess I still throw up a little in my mouth.

    • zore says:

      The problem with innovation is that it’s expensive. If no one helps funding of these electric cars/motorcycles, they would be so expensive, they would never sell. China is throwing huge amount of money and resources into alternative fuels such as electric, hydrogen and fusion.

      The cost of gas is only going to continue to go up and the cost of electric motorcycles and cars will continue to go down so at some point there will be a break even and the subsidies will go away. But until then, we need some incentive to drive the innovation that will be required. We are going to run out of fossil fuels

      On a side note, I’m not sure what the sales numbers on electric vehicles that are subsidies, but I woudl think, the tax payers portion of that is small potato’s compared to many of the other money sinks that we are paying for. Just my 2 cents.

  31. Tom Shields says:

    Gabe, how is the acceleration on the 9 kWh-equipped bikes?

  32. Freddie Brenneman says:

    I can’t wait to hear it with a yoshi

  33. Harvey Mushman says:

    I just checked, and the Buffalo Chip offers campsites with electric plug-ins.

  34. Brian says:

    I like it! My two cents is that electric powered vehicles will go mainstream as soon as battery technology (cost, weight, and performance) allows them to be competitive with their gas powered counterparts. Companies like Zero, if they can keep afloat, will go big if that happens…

  35. Roadrash1 says:

    I think that S model looks pretty cool. These would be great commuter bikes. Heck, you can even get off the surface streets & do some time on the freeway now!
    Price is always going to be a hurtle, until economy of scale kicks in on stuff like this.
    For people who seem bent on waiting for the sub $10K electric bike that can go 100 MPH for 500 miles on a 5 minute charge, all I can say is “apples to oranges”.
    Keep up the good work. It will be interesting to see how Brammo responds.

  36. Montana says:

    I’m really attracted to the silence, simplicity, smoothness and bottom end torque of an electric motor, and I’m fine with the bike’s aesthetics and price. It doesn’t have to look like a Harley to please me. What bothers me is the range. I guarantee that there is no way this thing will do even close to 114 miles at 88 miles per hour unless it is
    coming off Mt. Everest. Unless one is using it only for urban duty, a motorcycle needs a
    500 mile range at freeway speeds (which will translate to 300 miles in Colorado.)

    • Gabe says:

      Where did you read it would go 114 miles at top speed? Not in my article.

    • 80-watt Hamster says:

      Also, what motorcycle in existence will do 500 miles without extra fuel storage?

      • Justin says:

        None, but you can go from empty to full on a traditional bike in about 4 minutes. With this….not so much. That’s still the single biggest drawback of electric vehicles.

  37. Kjazz says:

    They still need to hire some styling talent, very unattractive machines to me.

  38. Bud says:

    Nice to see progress on the e-bike front. I look forward to the day they have a marketable product.

  39. Morris Bethoven says:

    So they hired a guy that used to work for the “Ugly Bike King”? The proportions really look off. Let’s be honest here, the styling was not improved even 1%. Those bikes may have improved performance for 2012, but the aesthetics sure need a lot of improvement. Hard to sell an ugly bike for $12,000.

  40. Hot Dog says:

    Cool! Do the poseur’s get a ape hanger option and sausage pipes?

  41. steveinsandiego says:

    wow,the zero S? i’d ride with pride. cool bike. but please, i need a 200-mile range to suit my motorcycling lifestyle.

    • Gabe says:

      They’re 57% of the way there! The 2011 would only go 43 miles, so you can see this is almost a tripling in less than a year. I don’t think future gains will be as dramatic, but I think 3-5 years will see a 100-mph e-bike with a 200-mile range for under $10,000. Oh, and you’ll be able to charge it to 80 or 90 percent charge in under 30 minutes.

  42. motogrin says:

    I really like the idea and one of these would suit my commute just fine… but, they are just not attractive. And I used to ride a Vstrom!

  43. George Krpan says:

    The S and DS are good looking.
    With the Fed and state incentives it could be cheaper to buy one of these than one of the automatic motorcycles or maxi-scooters AND way cheaper to run.
    The range would work just fine for me.

  44. man relish says:

    they got the name right anyway, which is equal to my desire or interest to plop down anything close to what these machines are going for

  45. Trpldog says:

    If I HAD to go elecrtic because of a govenmental mandate – a couple of Zeros could add up to more than the sum of its parts!

    • mudnducs says:

      hold that thought….if you’d accept your government telling you what you can and can’t have…they’re about to give you what you just said you’d accept.

      electric bikes are for giving PC thinkers a warm fuzzy.

  46. Gary says:

    There is still something very odd about the proportions. The wheel base appears very long and the bike looks too short. It’s just very odd looking.

    At $12,000 these machines are for people that hate gasoline. For $12k, I want performance that these bikes just can’t deliver.