Popular Post tenofnine Posted January 22, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2020 (edited) I just crunched some numbers for fun, this ratio reveals how much you are paying for everything else but the battery essentially. The higher the number the better since you are getting more battery for the buck. Anyone feel free to add some, most are priced from eWheels, but if there was a much lower price somewhere else for a US dealer I used that figure. I'll start off with how hilariously bad the Onewheel+ XR is for comparison (even being the best of it's ilk) Name Price Capacity Ratio Onewheel+ XR $1799 324 0.18 GW mten3 $599 420 0.701 $650 325 0.5 $999 512 0.51 inmotion v8F $1089 518 0.476 v8 $899 480 0.53 inmotion v10 $1099 650 0.591 v10F $1599 960 0.604 kingsong 16s $1199 840 0.701 16x $1990 1554 0.781 GW Tesla $1450 1020 0.703 MSX $1797 1600 0.89 Nikola $1897 1600 0.84 Gotway is by far the best aside from the 87v mten3's and Kingsong is right behind followed far behind by Inmotion. Edited January 22, 2020 by tenofnine 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Nice, an important factor. We could need a spreadsheet with all the data to come up with such ratios. For example, I'm interested in range per weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_bike_kite Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 @nullI added an "EUC ratios" report to my web database site that shows the info you're after. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Very neat, thanks a lot, here the monster shines in spite of its weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meepmeepmayer Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) Nice idea! I got curious about the Nikola: 2100Wh 84V $2450 0.86 1800Wh 100V $2300 0.78 1845Wh 100V $2450 0.75 2664Wh 100V (1rad mod, not official, but I love this thing) 2749€ = $3050 0.87 (Prices from ewheels, and using advertised battery capacity instead of real capacity) Edited January 23, 2020 by meepmeepmayer number fixed 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenofnine Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said: Nice idea! I got curious about the Nikola: 2100Wh 84V $2450 0.86 1800Wh 100V $2300 0.78 1845Wh 100V $2450 0.75 2664Wh 100V (1rad mod, not official, but I love this thing) 2749€ = $3050 0.87 (Prices from ewheels, and using advertised battery capacity instead of real capacity) Nice! After noodling around with these figures I started to regret not buying the MSuperX it's so worth every cent. But I'm happy that my Tesla is actually a pretty great deal as well, plus it's lighter and has a better trolley handle for me. I was thinking of getting a Kingsong 16s next just to experience a Kingsong wheel. But I feel like it's smarter to do something like get an 18" wheel or the Mten3 to experience something actually different than the 14" and 2 16" wheels I already have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenofnine Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, mike_bike_kite said: @nullI added an "EUC ratios" report to my web database site that shows the info you're after. Some of these numbers are a bit contradictory....are these wrongly reported manufacture specs or something? The Tesla v2 you have listed has 1080 Wh (couldn't find any but 1020Wh which is what I have) and the range you have listed is 70km While the Inmotion v10F you have 960Wh which is correct but the range you have says 90km. Huh? So your range weight ratio has the v10F a lot higher than the Tesla which I know for a fact is really backwards. The v10F for sure has a much heavier chassis and wheel than the Tesla, while the battery packs are of linear weight difference. Actual weight puts the v10F over 3 lbs heavier with less range. Edited January 23, 2020 by tenofnine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post vasuvius Posted January 23, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2020 Maybe it's just me, but I would look at dividing the $ cost by capacity. That tells you the cost per unit capacity. The lower that number the better that cost ratio. Name $ Cost Capacity (Wh) $ / Wh GW MSX $1,797 1600 $1.12 GW Nikola $1,897 1600 $1.19 kingsong 16x $1,990 1554 $1.28 GW Tesla $1,450 1020 $1.42 GW mten3 $599 420 $1.43 kingsong 16s $1,199 840 $1.43 inmotion v10F $1,599 960 $1.67 inmotion v10 $1,099 650 $1.69 inmotion v8F $899 480 $1.87 kingsong 14D $850 450 $1.89 GW mten3 $999 512 $1.95 GW mten3 $650 325 $2.00 inmotion v8F $1,089 518 $2.10 Onewheel+ XR $1,799 324 $5.55 If the table embedding comes through cleanly, anyone can copy and paste into a spreadsheet to add more data 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenofnine Posted January 23, 2020 Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, vasuvius said: Maybe it's just me, but I would look at dividing the $ cost by capacity. That tells you the cost per unit capacity. The lower that number the better that cost ratio. Name $ Cost Capacity (Wh) $ / Wh GW MSX $1,797 1600 $1.12 GW Nikola $1,897 1600 $1.19 kingsong 16x $1,990 1554 $1.28 GW Tesla $1,450 1020 $1.42 GW mten3 $599 420 $1.43 kingsong 16s $1,199 840 $1.43 inmotion v10F $1,599 960 $1.67 inmotion v10 $1,099 650 $1.69 inmotion v8F $899 480 $1.87 kingsong 14D $850 450 $1.89 GW mten3 $999 512 $1.95 GW mten3 $650 325 $2.00 inmotion v8F $1,089 518 $2.10 Onewheel+ XR $1,799 324 $5.55 If the table embedding comes through cleanly, anyone can copy and paste into a spreadsheet to add more data I initially started like this but I like higher numbers meaning positive results, plus it would make it special if a wheel could be such a value that it breaks 1.0 ratio (which I don't think can be profitable since the batteries cost is such a huge chunk of making these wheels). I also like ratios where everything can be put in terms of < 1 where 1 is 1:1 or 100% like with batting averages even though you usually see ratios in a X:Y format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasuvius Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 minute ago, tenofnine said: I initially started like this but I like higher numbers meaning positive results, plus it would make it special if a wheel could be such a value that it breaks 1.0 ratio (which I don't think can be profitable since the batteries cost is such a huge chunk of making these wheels). I also like ratios where everything can be put in terms of < 1 where 1 is 1:1 or 100% like with batting averages even though you usually see ratios in a X:Y format. A ratio with values in the 0 - 1 range normalizes the curve and is a better statistical way of looking at it. $ per unit is more consumer/economics friendly as it tells you impact on the pocket book. Depends on the goal of the analysis. If one were to add other factors like max weight, max range, etc, then a weighted avg ratio of cost to Wh, weight, range etc could be derived. Everyone could assign different weights to the factors based on what is important to them. I'll add more data and post a link to my google sheets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meepmeepmayer Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I think this is like the "miles per gallon" vs. "liter per 100km/gallons per 100 miles" discussion. Depending on what you are looking at, the one or the other makes more sense comparing different wheels. https://www.google.com/search?q=miles+per+gallon+vs+gallons+per+mile You cannot expect to "normalize" the values though where something never crosses 1.0. That would mean some nonlinear measurement, which is not a good idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_bike_kite Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 7 hours ago, tenofnine said: Some of these numbers are a bit contradictory....are these wrongly reported manufacture specs or something? The Tesla v2 you have listed has 1080 Wh (couldn't find any but 1020Wh which is what I have) and the range you have listed is 70km While the Inmotion v10F you have 960Wh which is correct but the range you have says 90km. Huh? So your range weight ratio has the v10F a lot higher than the Tesla which I know for a fact is really backwards. The v10F for sure has a much heavier chassis and wheel than the Tesla, while the battery packs are of linear weight difference. Actual weight puts the v10F over 3 lbs heavier with less range. The 1080Wh for the Tesla was an imput error by me and I've fixed this. Most of the range numbers have been taken from manufactures sites and their figures seem to be based on a small child riding on a glass surface in a vacuum. Some wheels aren't showing in the report because I just couldn't find a price or a range figure. Feel free to update any of the numbers by clicking update, make your changes and then click confirm update. You can also add new wheels by clicking insert - if you click insert on a similar wheel then it will keep the current data on screen so you can just alter the data that needs to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alcatraz Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 21700 cell equipped wheels are going to change this table of yours. 21700 cells have 50% more capacity (not density) than 18650 and they cost around the same. It means packs can be 50% higher capacity for the same price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.