700 Wh Battery

[Rusty]

I'm about the same weight, what range were you getting with the 500wh? With what settings?

Had not played with settings - just running at default and doing most of my mileage in Eco.
Spent ages adjusting the Scott but never really made much difference. Where I gained on some trails I lost on others.

 

[Rusty]

I'm about the same weight, what range were you getting with the 500wh? With what settings?

About 41-42 km on the trails I ride. My default loop is approx 46km with 650m elevation gain. On the Levo I have left the settings at default.
On my Shimano powered Scott I played around with all sorts of settings but never really increased the overall distance. Going by trail section, some trails it used less and others used more - no matter what setting I was playing with.

 

[exckiwi]

I have the 500 and 700 battery and as The Bike Pilot says I can't feel the difference between the two. I think the weight difference being over analysed.
The big difference is knowing you have plenty of range and not having to be conservative with the power mode button. Worth every extra gram.

 

[dogzilla]

Also, why do people insist on answering range questions in hours? It's totally meaningless. Range is measured as a distance, not a time. I've been out all day and done less miles than on days where I'm out for 2 hours.

Why do people insist on answering range in distance? It's totally meaningless. How much elevation? Weight of rider? What kind of surface?

Of course those of us with more than half a brain understand that range is a combination of numerous factors, none of which can be accurately measured and compared like for like, so we don't make stupid statements like you just did which would highlight our ignorance.

Fortunately I've just joined so I'll be more than happy to educate you on such matters.

 

[Doomanic]

Distance is far more relevant than time, but I'm sure you know that and are just trying to be clever. Better luck next time.

 

[miPbiP]

don't need a motor for distance do we, legs suffice very well for that (for anyone free of health issues).

it's a combination of altitude and time (because fast is less efficient than slow for the same ride).

 

[Doomanic]

All the monitoring systems that I'm aware of show range, completed and remaining, as miles or KM. Not time. Not altitude gained or lost. I do agree that a single metric is less useful than a combination of metrics.

Knowing how much climbing you've got left in the battery would be pretty damn useful though.

 

[dogzilla]

Distance is far more relevant than time, but I'm sure you know that and are just trying to be clever. Better luck next time.

I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just poking holes in your little rant.

Distance is no more relevent than any other single metric when taken in isolation because as I've just pointed out, range is highly dependent on a number of factors.

It only becomes useful as metric when you make assumption. E.g. a test schedule in which all the parameters are fixed(assumptions) which then in theory gives you a comparative figure.

Otherwise your range number is totally incomparable with mine. Not very relevent at all.