Jason McNeil Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 A couple months ago I did some controlled range testing with the Ninebot E & the IPS132. Although both units have similar nominal battery capacity—the IPS 132 has 260Wh, while the Ninebot has 240Wh, the results where surprising in that the IP132 had 20% better range in actual range than the Ninebot with identical cruising speed, track conditions & rider weight. This is accountable, because many cells nominal capacity is rated with a load that is less than the cruising speed of an Electric Wheel. With high-power cells, like the Sony US18650V3 that are found in the IPS132, offers a similar energy output across a wide-range of loads, from 1A to 10A. Other cells, however, may loose a substantial % of their rated capacity as the load increases. How this translates in Wh/Mile, is that the best performer (out the the three units tested) is the IPS132 at 20.68Wh/mile, with Ninebot One E managing only 22.84Wh/M. At first sight, 10% may not seem like much, but practical experience demonstrates that this increments make a big difference for range planning in the real-world.Another related consideration is how the control board manages 'limp-home-mode', the condition where the battery is low, usually about 25-33% capacity. Some control-boards are setup very conservatively (with pedal-tilt-up action), where it is difficult to exceed 5MPH—those last couple miles home are never as enjoyable. With others, you can still maintain a fairly respectable 7-10MPH until the battery is finally exhausted. Ninebot One E: 22.84Wh/MIPS 132: 20.68Wh/MIPS 121 (T350): 21.88Wh/M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.