City Slicker – The ExhaustNotes Blog

Managing Expectations

Alta, a manufacturer of electric dirt bikes, very recently announced they are closing their doors. Here’s the article I read on it: Alta Motors Ceases Operations. This is interesting on several levels. Alta previously announced a strategic partnership with Harley-Davidson. I thought this would figure into Harley’s Livewire project and help both companies enormously, but I guess that isn’t the case. Last year, Alta lowered their prices substantially. I thought this would increase their sales, even though their prices were still high. Alta had the electric dirt bike niche all to themselves, and this niche seemed to be more suited to an electric motorcycle’s range limitations. Basically, motocross racing doesn’t require extended range, making Alta’s focus appear to be a well-thought-out strategy. And finally, Alta had sold a large number of bikes, and they had orders for several hundred more (see the link above).

I guess, in the final analysis, it all comes down to profitability and cash reserves, and if you don’t have enough of either, you can’t keep going. This makes Alta the second big US e-bike effort to flop (the first being the Brammo).

We are living in interesting times, and that is especially true with respect to the e-bike world. The e-bike industry is simultaneously emerging and going through a shakeout.

I have been to the mountain. In this case, I did it on Slick. Slick isn’t the last e-bike that will emerge from Chongqing’s inner chambers; he’s only the first of many.

The CSC City Slicker, the newest player in this arena, is already playing a significant role. The three big things Slick has going for it are its price, its quality (it’s world-class; see our earlier blog posts) and CSC’s well-earned reputation for customer service. The biggest challenges for CSC and the City Slicker, I think, will be overcoming the US aversion to Chinese products, the ongoing uncertainties in the US/China trade relationship, and redefining customer expectations.

Overcoming US aversion to Chinese products is the least of these issues, and personally, I wouldn’t waste a single second attempting to do so. I think CSC and Zongshen put that issue to bed with the RX3 (it’s a world-class machine, with quality as good as or better than any motorcycle produced anywhere in the world). To be blunt, anybody still singing songs about Chinese slave labor and low Chinese quality is too stupid and too ignorant to waste time listening to. They won’t change their minds, so expending any effort attempting to convince them otherwise is an exercise in futility. Hey, there are still people who think the earth is flat and that we faked the moon landing. Best to forget about them, thank your lucky stars you aren’t that stupid, and move on.

I think the current uncertainties in the US/China trade relationship will sort themselves out within the next several months. I think the tariff issue will either go away or have relatively insignificant effects, and I think much of what is going on now is posturing and positioning for a serious set of negotiations between our leaders. Our trading relationship with China is, to borrow a phrase, too big to fail.

So we’re down to that last issue, redefining expectations, and that will be the biggest challenge for CSC and the electric motorcycle market. There’s no question that CSC has a pricing advantage that is insurmountable, and I think when CSC announced the City Slicker it set a new reality in the US e-bike industry. I think Alta realized that and that it might have played a role in their throwing in the towel. I have to think that the folks at Zero are similarly eyeing the situation and ingesting huge amounts of Pepto-Bismol (and that’s using as charitable a phrase as I can think of). You might argue that Alta and Zero have (or had) bigger motorcycles with different missions, but that would be as shortsighted and wrong as arguing that all Chinese goods are low quality or the earth is flat. Yes, Zero motorcycles are bigger and have more capability, but that’s the world as it exists this instant. The world does not stand still, my friends. Do you think, even for one second, that the City Slicker is the only sensibly-priced e-bike that will emerge from Chongqing? Do you think that future e-bikes from China will be small and have the same limitations as do today’s e-bikes? I have been to the mountain, folks. The answer is no.

A street scene in Beijing. You might see 50 e-bikes for every gas-powered scooter over there. It’s a tsunami, and it’s coming this way, folks.

But I digress: Back to this expectations thing. The City Slicker is not a bike that you can hop on and ride 2000 miles through Baja with a few stops for gas (or topping off the battery). The range is limited to something like 40 to 60 miles today, depending on how fast you want to go. The challenge here is to reach customers willing to use their City Slickers like their iPhones…something you plug in and top off whenever you have a chance. That’s a different market than folks who buy internal combustion bikes. But it’s potentially a huge market, as I saw firsthand in China where zillions of e-bikes were tethered to extension cords in front of every business on every city street. More on this expectations thing: CSC recently announced the price for a replacement Slick battery, and I think it’s about $1100. Some of the keyboard commandos were choking on that number. Hey, go price a replacement Zero battery. You could buy three brand new City Slickers for what a Zero battery costs. Like I said earlier, the challenge is going to be redefining expectations. Are we up for it and will CSC market the City Slicker (and the Chinese e-bikes that will inevitably follow) in a manner that emphasizes this new reality?

Time will tell, but I know where I’d put my money.

Slick’s Wheels and Suspension

4.2 inches of travel in front, 4.3 inches of rear suspension travel, and 12-inch wheels…this puppy can carve!

I thought I would add a few words today about the CSC City Slicker’s wheels and suspension.

First, the suspension. Slick’s front end has a conventional non-adjustable inverted front fork with 4.2 inches of travel, and the rear has a swingarm, pre-load-adjustable monoshock, arrangement with 4.3 inches of travel. Here are a couple of photos showing each:

Slick’s rear monoshock. It’s adjustable for preload by loosening and moving the locknuts.

The City Slicker’s suspension felt good to me, and the handling was razor-sharp. On prior internal combustion bikes from Zongshen (the RX3 and the TT250), we realized a handling improvement changing the fork oil from whatever the bikes shipped with to a 10W oil. The City Slicker did not feel to me like it needed this change. The front suspension feels good right out of the box. The was no bottoming out, nor was there any topping out (when the forks fully extend). The rear suspension felt firmer to me than it needed to be, but I noticed the rear shock had been set with the spring preload adjustment in the middle of the monoshock’s adjustment range. There appears to be plenty of room for adjustment. This can be accomplished by using a spanner to unlock the locknuts and relax the spring a bit (this assumes the spring is already compressed a bit with the adjustment as delivered by the factory). I haven’t tried this yet, but I will the next time I have an opportunity to do so.

The wheels on the City Slicker are 12 inches in diameter, which is the same as most scooters, the Honda Grom, the CSC Mustang replicas, and the original Mustang motorcycles. On one of the many recent forums discussing the new City Slicker, a poster commented that 12-inch wheels are dangerous…you know, you might hit a pothole in the rain and get thrown from the bike. I don’t think that should be a concern. The truth is this: 12-inch wheels are a common design on smaller bikes and they make for incredibly quick handling. When I was on my 150cc CSC Mustang replica, I rediscovered what Walt Fulton proved back in the 1950s (more on that in a second). My CSC 150 had 12-inch wheels (just like the original Mustangs) and it was awesome in the twisties.

Yours truly with my CSC-150 on Glendora Ridge Road. I rode that bike to Cabo San Lucas and back, but that’s a story for a future blog.

Glendora Ridge Road, up in the San Gabriel Mountains, is just few miles from my house. It’s a great road from many perspectives, not the least of which is a set of glorious twisties. It is my favorite ride, and I wrote a story about it for Motorcycle Classics magazine. The point that I’m getting to in my very roundabout way is this: When I was on Glendora Ridge Road on my 150cc Mustang, I could hang with any bike up there, and most other motorcycles of any displacement couldn’t catch me (other than on GRR’s very few short straights). In the corners, my little 150 was king. It was all about wheel diameter and handling. You might not believe me, but there are more than a few riders I’ve met up there who know. They’re not talking about it, but they know. They’ve been humbled.

Walt Fulton breaking 100 mph on a Mustang back in the day…all on 12-inch diameter wheels!

So, back to Walt Fulton. He was a famous factory racer back in the 1950s who had lost his factory ride with another manufacturer. This was just before the Catalina Grand Prix, and Fulton did not have a ride. At the last minute, the Mustang Motor Corporation offered Fulton a factory spot, he accepted, and he nearly won on his 320cc, 12-inch-wheeled Mustang. Fulton passed 145 other riders on machines with up to four times the displacement (and, of course, larger wheels).

Fulton’s engine failed just a few miles from the finish, but he was on a tack to win that event. To make a long story just a little less long, the other factories complained to the Catalina Grand Prix organizers and delivered an ultimatum: Find a way to outlaw that damned Mustang next year, or we’re picking up our marbles and going home. Whaddya know…there was a sudden change to the rules. As Forrest Gump might say, just like that no one could race with wheels smaller than 16 inches. Yup. It happens.

The bottom line here is this: Slick’s 12-inch wheels make for extremely crisp handling. If you’ve never ridden a bike with 12-inch wheels, you really need to try one. I’ve found the handling is sharper than anything I’ve ever experienced.

An e-bike comparo…Zero and Slick

This is an interesting thing to do…a comparison of two electric motorcycles, the Zero SR and the CSC City Slicker. Some of you might think I’m nuts for even attempting it. After all, the Zero costs $16,990, and the Slicker is $2,495. And that’s before you put all of the fees, taxes, and other stuff on either bike. You might predict I’m going to say one is overpriced and the other is cheap Chinese junk, but I’m not. These motorcycles are different tools intended to meet different needs for different riders. The good news is they’re both fun. A lot of fun, actually.

$16,990, plus fees. Or $2,495 for the City Slicker. Decisions, decisions…

You might ask: Why just these two motorcycles? Aren’t there other e-bikes out there?

Well, yes and no. But that’s a subject for another blog and I’ll come back to that question later. I included only the City Slicker and the Zero because I had access to both. I have a relationship with CSC (I used to write the CSC blog and I’ve literally been all over the world on their bikes) and my good friend Art Guilfoil owns a Zero dealership (Douglas Motorcycles, in San Bernardino).

Zero has been around for a few years, and the SR is one of their latest models. It’s a refined design, and it is the state of the art in electric motorcycles. To cut to the chase, I was impressed (more on that in a bit).

The CSC City Slicker is new. I first rode one in China during a visit to Zongshen, and I recommended to CSC that they bring the City Slicker to North America. It’s working well; the City Slicker has received tremendous press here in the US and CSC sales of this new electric motorcycle are brisk.

On a City Slicker for the first time on the mean streets of Chongqing…

I’m going to compare Slick and Zero from performance, price, and product perspectives. There’s too much going on to cover it all these topics in a single blog entry, so this comparison will be presented in several blogs. This first one is on two aspects of performance: Acceleration and top speed. There are other performance parameters, including range, recharge time, braking, and handling. I’ll cover those in a future blogs.

Acceleration

For starters, if you’re looking for 0-60 or ¼-mile times, read no further. I didn’t do any of that. The City Slicker won’t go 60 mph, and I didn’t take either bike to Irwindale. My comments on acceleration are subjective. With that caveat, let’s dive in to this topic.

I rode the Zero at Douglas Motorcycles in San Bernardino and I was impressed. I like it when a motorcycle accelerates so hard it scares the hell out of me, and the Zero did that. I’ve owned fast bikes before (a Suzuki TL1000S, and a Triumph Daytona and a Speed Triple). Those bikes had a direct connection from their throttles to the gland that releases adrenalin. The Zero, however, is in another league altogether. In the Sport Mode, the SR has a punch in the pants that is downright terrifying. Bottom line: I thought that was very cool. I liked it. A lot.

The City Slicker? The first time you ride one, it has a tendency to feel like it’s going to squirt out from under you, but you get used to it quickly. That’s what happened to me in China. Slick’s acceleration is more manageable. Slick had no problem keeping up with city traffic when the light turned green. It was a little weird accelerating in total silence. I could hear every sound from the cars and other bikes around me. It was different.

They tell me the torque is instantaneous off zero rpm with electric bikes. What that translates into is a punch the instant you twist the throttle. On the City Slicker, it’s there, but it’s not intimidating. It’s maybe a notch into the “wow” range the first time you ride the bike, and then it just becomes part of the experience. On the Zero, it’s simultaneously awesome, exciting, and terrifying. Folks, the Zero is one hard-accelerating motorcycle.

I mentioned the Sport mode on the Zero, so let me get into that now. Both bikes have rider-selectable operating modes. I’m an older guy and I always thought the idea of a “mode” was a silly thing when it first appeared on internal combustion bikes. In fact, a kid at one of the motorcycle shows once visited the CSC booth after spending time with the Ducati people and he wanted to know how many modes the CSC 250cc bikes had. At first, I didn’t know what he was talking about, and then I got it.

“Two,” I said. “On, and Off.”

That was then, and this is now. On electric bikes, these modes are good ideas. You need them to maximize range (the subject of a future blog), and in the case of the Zero, to keep the bike from getting away from you.

Zero has three modes: Eco, Sport, and Custom. The Eco mode dials down the bike’s acceleration and maximizes range. The Custom mode lets you use your smartphone to manage the bike’s power output, and you can dial in whatever you want between the bike’s Eco and Sport settings. The Sport mode is for balls out, no holds barred, raw power. It’s wicked.

Zero advertises that their bike will out-accelerate a Porsche 911. I didn’t have a chance to check that out, but I’ll take their word for it. I tried the Sport mode when I rode the Zero, and it is seriously fast. I was scared I would lose control of the rear wheel (the Zero has ABS but not traction control; they tell me that may change next year). Not much scares me; accelerating on a Zero in the Sport mode did. I like being scared. You probably will, too.

The City Slicker has two modes: Eco and Power. The Eco mode limits the bike’s top end to 36 mph, and it gives the bike a longer range. The Power mode removes the output limit, and lets the bike accelerate up to an indicated 46-47 mph. What’s cool is you can switch between modes on the move. If you’re rolling along at 35 mph in the Eco mode and you flip the right handlebar switch to the Power mode, it’s like kicking in the afterburners. You get an immediate burst of acceleration up to a new top speed of 46.6 mph. It’s cool. It’s not exhilarating or frightening like the Zero, but it’s still cool.

I can tell you that I spent a lot of time riding the City Slicker around town, in the Eco mode, and I never felt like I needed more acceleration or top end. Even with the Eco mode’s 36-mph limit, I had enough for mixing it up in town. And I still had Slick’s Power mode afterburners in reserve.

Top Speed

Zero states that their SR’s top speed is just north of 100 mph (they also say that top speed is a function of riding style and motorcycle configuration, which I took as hedging their bets a little). I didn’t attempt to run the Zero to its top speed; all of my riding on that bike was in urban San Bernardino. I can tell you this: The Zero is one seriously fast motorcycle, and if they say it will do 102 mph, I have no reason to doubt that number.

CSC says the City Slicker will hit 46.6 mph. It will, but it’s an indicated 46-47 mph on the bike’s digital dash, and my testing shows that the speedo is about 10% optimistic. That means the City Slicker’s real top speed is more like 42-43 mph.

The bottom line: From the perspectives of top speed and acceleration, the Zero is the clear winner. The real question, though, is this: Do you need or want that much top end?

You and I already know the answer to the “want” part of the question, so let’s turn to the “need.” Hey, what you think you need is your call. The City Slicker wasn’t engineered to be a drag racer, nor was it designed to run on the freeways. The City Slicker, as the name states, is an urban commuter. The Zero can run on the freeways, the City Slicker cannot. The Zero is faster. If you’re looking to argue that point, you need to look elsewhere.

But the performance the Zero delivers comes with a price. Let me go back to what I mentioned at the start of this blog. The Zero costs $16,990 plus fees and the City Slicker costs $2495 plus fees (and Slick’s fees will be a lot less than the Zero’s). Stated differently, you could buy seven or eight City Slickers for the cost of one Zero. Yeah, the Zero is faster. But wow, the price differential…

And don’t delude yourself into thinking you can see the price differential in the build quality of the two bikes. They are both well made. Fit and finish on both bikes is world class. If you want to argue that the City Slicker is a cheap Chinese piece of junk, you have my permission to demonstrate your ignorance on an Internet forum or in the Disqus comments on any of the many articles recently written on the City Slicker. There are a lot of stupid and uninhibited people posting nonsense on the Internet, and if you want to join them, go for it. But you’d be dead wrong.

What would I buy? It depends on what I was trying to do, and how much money I wanted to spend. If I wanted to be green and I had a commute at city speeds, I’d be all over the City Slicker. If I wanted a cool bike to add to my collection and I didn’t need it to ride cross country, score one for the City Slicker. If I wanted a bike that could run with IC bikes (for shorter distances, anyway; neither of these bikes are all day rides), I’d go for the Zero. But I’d only do that if I had $20K laying around I didn’t need (that’s about what the Zero’s purchase price would be after tax, licensing, registration, and all the rest that goes with buying a bike). The bottom line here? It’s your money and your call. In my opinion, both bikes are a lot of fun. You wouldn’t be making a mistake with either one.

But that price difference…

Phase III: Climbing Mt. Baldy

Slick, taking a breather at the Mt. Baldy Lodge. My apologies for the mediocre image quality; all I had with me was my iPhone.

Phase III (pardon the electrical pun) of our City Slicker testing involved riding Slick from my home up to Mt. Baldy Village. It’s a 2,500-foot climb over 9.2 miles, and it’s rough. It’s a challenging climb on a small IC-engined motorcycle, and it’s really, really rough on a bicycle (as I know from personal experience). I knew power consumption would be higher based on our Phase I and II testing (see those results here and here), but the earlier tests did not include steep climbs. Phase III was a fairly steep uphill climb all the way, and then a steep descent all the way down. Here’s the route I took, up and down…

A satellite map of the test route…north Upland to Mt. Baldy village.

I didn’t know how Slick would do, and I didn’t want to run the bike down more than 50% (you know, to make sure I had the juice to get home). I decided in advance that if the bike hit the 50% energy remaining mark on the way up, I’d turn around and head back.

I need not have worried, though. I sailed up to the Mt. Baldy Lodge (that first photo you see above) with 56% power remaining on the charge indicator. I stopped to take a picture, and then I turned around and rode home. Here’s what it looks like on a miles versus battery charge plot…

Miles versus Battery Charge, up and down Mt. Baldy Road. The bike started with a 99% charge and was at 56% remaining after climbing from 1700 ft above sea level to 4193 ft above sea level. On the way down, power consumption was dramatically lower; I covered the same distance using only 10% of the battery’s charge.

As you can see from the above chart, energy consumption on the way down was near zero. I used 43% of the battery’s energy (from 99% to 56%) to make the 9.2-mile, 2500-ft-elevation climb, and then I used only 10% of the battery’s energy (from 56% to 46%) to cover the same distance riding downhill. Cool.

I ran this test in the Eco mode, mostly because I didn’t want to use too much energy on the climb. In the Eco mode on flat ground, the bike tops out at an indicated 37 mph (don’t forget that the speedometer is about 8-10% fast, so actual speed is lower). On the climb, Slick slowed to an indicated 33 to 34 mph on the steepest hills, which is about what my 150cc CSC Mustang could manage.

On the way down the mountain, Slick ran 43-44 mph (still in the Eco mode), and the throttle became meaningless. The bike coasted downhill faster than the motor could drive it. It reminded me of my bicycle down this same stretch. On my bicycle, I topped out at the same speed and pedaling was useless because my Bianchi was already going faster than I could pedal.

Watching Slick’s regeneration function on the dash was cool. The red regen plug (to the left of the battery charge indicator) stayed red for most of the run downhill. I previously wondered if the bike only regenerated at lower speeds; I now know it regens at all speeds when Slick is going faster than the motor is driving it. Just like before, though, I never saw the charge percentage indicator go up (say, from 48% to 49%). It just stayed at a given percentage for a much longer time. I asked the wizards at Zongshen about this, and they confirmed it’s what they would expect.

The knee in the x-y plot at the 56% charge level is where I turned around (at the Mt. Baldy Lodge). It shows that Slick uses way less energy going downhill than it does going uphill. Like they say…duh. The slight changes in the slope of each line (for the uphill section, and then for the downhill section) are due to changes in the grade on Mt. Baldy Road. There were undulations in the road, and that’s why there are minor variances in the slope of the line on both the uphill and downhill portions of the graph.

Once I was home, I put Slick back on the charger for the ride back to CSC. I’m headed out on a road trip next week, and I wanted to return the bike to Steve.

I did the climb up to Mt. Baldy with the lights off. My bike is a preproduction sample, and it’s not wired to keep the lights on. The production City Slickers will have the LED marker lights on all the time(that’s a US requirement). The LEDs will consume a little energy, so the range will be somewhat less for the US bikes than what I’ve been reporting.

To get a feel for what the impact of having the lights on might be, when I returned the bike to CSC I rode there with the headlight and taillight on. This is a more severe test than would be running the bike with only the LED lights (the headlight and taillight consumes more energy than the LEDs). Previously, without the lights on the 16.4-mile ride to CSC from my home took 35% of the battery’s charge. Running the same route today with the headlight and taillight on, I used 42% of the battery’s energy. Note that this is more energy than would be consumed with just the LEDs (but it is representative of energy consumption when riding the bike at night). And, I was hotfooting it a bit. I wanted to stay at around 34-35 mph, but Slick was smelling the barn and I frequently ran faster than that.

So there you have it. Eco mode, Power mode, and a steep climb and descent on the CSC City Slicker. Stay tuned; there’s more coming on this fascinating new electric motorcycle. You’ll see it here first.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: