Ariel Rider has a wide range of electric bikes from simple folding e-bikes to cargo e-bikes and commuter e-bikes. But some of their most popular models have been their moped-style e-bikes, and now the company has added the new Ariel Rider Grizzly electric moped to its lineup.
The Grizzly was just launched as something of an adventure-style electric moped.
In the review, I mentioned there was still some room for improvement, such as adding rear suspension, beefing up the front suspension fork, and perhaps offering more battery capacity to feed those two power hungry motors.
To my surprise, the company called me up a few months later and said “Done.”
The result was the Ariel Rider Grizzly, which took all of my suggestions and then added a few more I hadn’t even considered.
The powerful Grizzly sits on a pair of 20″ fat tires wrapped around 750W continuous motors that each put out 1,500W of peak power.
That means you’re looking at a 3 kW peak-rated electric moped here, folks.
The metal reinforcement makes the motors a bit louder than others, but also helps them handle the extreme power that Ariel Rider regularly dumps into them.
Ariel Rider doesn’t even list the speed of the Grizzly, which might make it one those “If you have to ask…” situations. The Ariel Rider D-Class rocketed me up to 33 mph (53 km/h) though and all indications are that the Grizzly should match if not surpass the D-Class’s performance. Most of Ariel Rider’s e-bikes ship with a 20 mph (32 km/h) factory installed speed limiter, and it is the responsibility of the rider to decide when and where to remove the speed limit.
A handlebar-mounted switch lets riders control traction with either front wheel drive, rear wheel drive or AWD.
The front fork is an upgraded version of the one on the D-Class and the rear now gets dual coilover shocks.
The battery voltage has been bumped from 48V to 52V (which gives around a 7% power/speed boost) and a second battery was added to the frame. Between the 52V 17.5 Ah battery under the seat and the 52V 14Ah battery on the downtube, the bike packs in over 1,600 watt-hours of capacity.
That’s enough capacity for up to 60 miles (100 km) of range, according the company.
The saddle received an upgrade to make it more comfortable, and is available in either a short or long version, depending on if you want to bring a friend. If so, there are upgraded fold-up foot pegs to give your pillion a comfortable place to rest his or her feet.
The added rear suspension will surely be appreciated by a second rider.
Hydraulic disc brakes and knobby fat tires should give plenty of safe grip for hitting trails, which is where the full-suspension design will really come in handy.
And the Grizzly even includes a full fender set so you won’t rooster tail mud onto yourself or onto all the chicks you pick up on the trail.
The Ariel Rider Grizzly is currently on pre-order with shipping expected in the beginning of February. The $3,299 e-bike is currently marked down to $2,799 as part of a combined early promo and Black Friday sale.
In fact, Ariel Rider has a number of Black Friday deals on its other bike’s you’ll likely want to check out.
We’ve got a Grizzly with our name on it coming for review soon, so be sure to check back to see what we think of this high-powered electric moped once we can test it ourselves. Time will tell if other epic full suspension, dual battery electric mopeds and minibikes like the Juiced HyperScrambler 2 should be worried or not.
And until then, check out my video review of the Ariel Rider D-Class, below. It is nearly as insanely powerful and definitely worth a look.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
After using the Enel-X JuiceBox EV charger for about 8 months now, we put it to the test in this video review, including comparisons and of course, our exclusive charger deep freeze test.
The Enel-X JuiceBox is available in 32, 40 & 48-amp versions, and other than the power rating, the units are identical. We chose to review the 40-amp version, which we believe will be the most popular one, based on its features, cost, and power output.
The New JuiceBox has a completely new look with an integrated connector holster and cable management loop.
The unit we reviewed is actually the second-generation of JuiceBox chargers and is a completely new unit that Enel-X began selling in early 2020. We liked the original JuiceBox EVSE a lot and reviewed it back in 2015. The new JuiceBox has all of the smart-charging features of the original JuiceBox, plus more, and it has an integrated connector holster and cable management loop.
The new, more stylish look of the JuiceBox included an LED bar across the bottom of the main unit that changes color depending on whether the car is currently charging, finished charging, or idle between charging events.
We explain how the JuiceBox’s mounting bracket works.
The JuiceBox is easy to install and only requires you to secure a long mounting bracket onto the wall. The JuiceBox then slides into the groves in the bracket which hole it into place. You then have the option of locking it in place and removing the key if needed. That won’t be necessary for most home garage installations, but for those mounting the JuiceBox outside their home, or in a garage that other residents have access to, having the ability to lock the unit to the wall is a very important option.
This also allows the JuiceBox to be removed quickly if needed. Other chargers that need to be securely attached to the wall cannot be quickly removed, because you need to open the unit up to remove the mounting screws that are inside the enclosure. Enel solved that issue with the locking mounting bracket, enabling the JuiceBox to be both easily removable and safely secured.
enel-x Juicebox connector compared to the connectors used by ChargePoint and ClipperCreek
We also like to take a close look at the connectors used on the chargers and compare them to competing brands. The JuiceBox uses a connector made by ITT. It’s a popular choice among EVSE, and it’s a durable connector that can withstand abuse. While we don’t dislike the ITT connector, we do like the connectors used by ChargePoint and ClipperCreek a little more, because they have a softer rubberized grip, and feel a little more premium than the ITT connector does.
One of the things we do here that nobody else does when reviewing EV chargers is what we call our cable deep freeze test. We place the chargers in a commercial freezer overnight to replicate having the charger mounted outdoors in extremely cold winter conditions. After about 12 hours in the freezer, we take the charger out and see how easy the cable is to bend and manipulate. In the case of the JuiceBox, the cable was extremely stiff and unmanageable.
enel-x Juicebox undergoes our cable deep freeze test
The JuiceBox’s cable actually performed the worst of all of the cables we’ve tested so far in the deep freeze test. For that reason, we can’t recommend the JuiceBox for outdoor installations in areas where the temperatures frequently drop below freezing. We think it would be a good idea for Enel-X to offer a cold weather cable as an option in the future.
The smart charging features of the JuiceBox is really where the unit excels. It has more of these features than any other charger available today. The JuiceBox’s app lets you adjust the power the charger delivers, so you can use it on a circuit that is less than the 50-amp circuit required to deliver the full 40-amps the unit can supply to the vehicle. It also is Amazon Alexa and Google Home compatible and can participate in utility demand response programs.
The JuiceBox also has a feature that few other chargers do, and that’s the ability to power share between more than one JuiceBox. This allows the user to share more than one JuiceBox on a single circuit. The JuiceBoxes will communicate with each other and ensure that they won’t overload the circuit. This makes charging two EVs at home more convenient and the chargers less expensive to install.
You can also schedule the JuiceBox to charge your EV at a set time to coincide with time-of-use utility rates, which can save a lot of money. We should mention that most EVs today already have that feature built into the car, but you then have to disable it when you’re using a public charger and can forget to reset the TOU schedule once you get home. If your home charger has the ability to schedule charging, you don’t need to fumble with in-car scheduling, and possibly forget to set it back later.
We’ll be reviewing all of the popular EV home chargers so we’ve created a point-based system called the ChargerRater. The ChargerRater five categories and in each category the EVSE starts out with 15 points. Points are then added or subtracted for features and performance. The total is then converted into a 5-Star score.
We then offer our own opinion of the equipment, also on a 5-star scale, and average the two scores. The Enel-X JuiceBox 40 received an excellent score of 89 points on our ChargerRater scoring system which equals 4.45 stars and finished up with a combined rating of 4.6 stars when averaged with our personal 5-star rating.
Check out the video review and let us know your thoughts on the Enel-X JuiceBox, as well as our rating system. As always, use the comment section below to let us know what you think.
SpaceX has installed another Starship’s nosecone, all but completing the second full-size prototype a matter of days before the first fully-assembled Starship’s risky launch debut.
Over the last two months, SpaceX has effectively put Starship number 8 (SN8) through an almost nonstop series of tests, completing at least four separate cryogenic proof tests, four Raptor engine static fires, and much more. The company’s South Texas team have also dodged an array of technical bugs; installed, plumbed, and wired what amounts to ~40% of Starship (the nose section) while fully exposed to the coastal elements; and even narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic failure.
In spite of the many hurdles thrown up and delays resultant, CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that Starship SN8 is scheduled to attempt its 15-kilometer (~50,000 ft) launch debut as early as Monday, November 30th. Musk, however, does not see success as the most probable outcome.
Why, then, push to launch Starship SN8 when, in Musk’s own words, the probability of success is as low as “33%”? As previously discussed many times in the history of Teslarati’s BFR and Starship coverage, SpaceX’s attitude towards technology development is (unfortunately) relatively unique in the aerospace industry. While once a backbone of major parts of NASA’s Apollo Program moonshot, modern aerospace companies simply do not take risks, instead choosing a systems engineering methodology and waterfall-style development approach, attempting to understand and design out every single problem to ensure success on the first try.
The result: extremely predictable, conservative solutions that take huge sums of money and time to field but yield excellent reliability and all but guarantee moderate success. SpaceX, on the other hand, borrows from early US and German rocket groups and, more recently, software companies to end up with a development approach that prioritizes efficiency, speed, and extensive testing, forever pushing the envelope and thus continually improving whatever is built.
In the early stages of any program, the results of that approach can look extremely unusual and rudimentary without context (i.e. Starhopper, above), but building and testing a minimum viable product or prototype is a very intentional foundation. Particularly at the start, those minimal prototypes are extremely cheap and almost singularly focused on narrowing a vast range of design options to something more palatable. As those prototypes rapidly teach their builders what the right and wrong questions and design decisions are, more focused and refined prototypes are simultaneously built and tested.
Done well, the agile approach is often quite similar to evolution, where prototype failures inform necessary design changes and killing off dead-end strategies, designs, and assumptions before they can be built upon. In many cases, compared to cautious waterfall-style development, it will even produce results that are both better, cheaper, and faster to realize. SpaceX’s Starship program is perhaps the most visible example in history, made all the more interesting and controversial by the fact that it’s still somewhere in between its early, chaotic development phase and a clear path to a viable product.
On the build side of things, SpaceX has created a truly incredible ad hoc factory from next to nothing, succeeding to the point that the company is now arguably testing and pushing the envelope too slowly. As of November 2020, no fewer than eight full-size Starships and the first Super Heavy booster prototype are visibly under construction. Most recently, Starship SN9 was stacked to its full height, kicking off nosecone installation while still at the build site (unlike SN8). SN10’s completed tank section is likely ready to begin flap installation within the next few days, while Starship SN11 is perhaps a week or two behind that. Additionally, large tank sections of Starships SN12, SN13, SN14, SN15, and (most likely) SN16 are already completed and have all been spotted in the last few weeks.
Some ~90% of the above work was likely started after Starship SN8 first left the factory and rolled to the launch pad on September 26th. In many regards, SN8 has been the first to reach multiple major milestones, largely explaining the relatively plodding pace of its test program compared to SN4, SN5, and SN6.
Ultimately, SN9’s imminent completion – effectively a superior, more refined copy of SN8 – means that Starship SN8’s utility to SpaceX is rapidly deteriorating. The company would almost assuredly never skip an opportunity to learn, meaning that there’s no plausible future in which SN8 testing doesn’t continue, but that doesn’t mean that SpaceX can’t turn its risk tolerance to 11. In essence, accept a 67% (or higher) chance of Starship SN8’s violent destruction but learn as much as possible in the process. As long as good data is gathered, SN8’s launch debut will be a success for Starship whether the rocket lands in one or several pieces.
SpaceX backup Starship reaches full height after nosecone installation
It’s a great time to save big on electric bicycles with plenty of early Black Friday sales. The latest e-bike company jumping the gun with early sales is Ride1Up, maker of several popular e-bike models that I’ve personally tested and can recommend.
Ride1Up has three different tiers of sales this year, offering either $50, $100 or $150 off of their e-bikes.
You can find the complete sale breakdown on their site here.
Ride1Up made a splash earlier this summer when the company unveiled its new Ride1Up Roadster V2.
The single-speed e-bike includes a belt drive and carries an incredibly low (for the industry) MSRP of just $995.
But now the lightweight and sleek-looking Ride1Up Roadster V2 is on sale for an extra $50 off the already industry-leading price. This is also the lowest price the bike has ever been sold for.
I’m currently riding around on a silver version of the bike ahead of an upcoming full review on Electrek.
The bike is easy to pedal and easy to maintain thanks to the single-speed setup and that smooth belt drive. It’s also nearly silent when riding, which is another cool feature you don’t find with some louder e-bike motors. And lastly, the battery is completely hidden inside the frame so you’d almost never know this was an e-bike!
The rest of Ride1Up’s e-bikes are being offered at between $50 to $150 off of retail prices.
The Ride1Up 700 Series e-bike is a bit of an upgrade, including offering an integrated battery and hydraulic disc brakes.
If you can swing the extra cash for the higher MSRP of $1,495, then it’s totally worth it. Especially if you take advantage of the current sale to take another up to $150 off, depending on the model.
Ride1Up’s last model, and one of its latest, is the LMT’D. It’s the priciest model in the line at $1,795, but it also has the best components, including a nice air-suspension fork, great brakes and a sleek integrated battery. Plus, the powerful motor pulls strong all the way up to 28 mph and is a blast to ride!
I’ve put some good miles on this bike and I will 100% recommend it as an awesome commuter e-bike that has the power to do so much more.
We’ll have more Black Friday e-bike deals coming to you soon, so stick around 9to5Toys for the latest!
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Although it may seem like a disappointment for all PHEV owners – old or recent, like me – that is something I had brought up when I wrote my article as a concern. My precise words there were these:
“Apart from not burning fuel, buying an electric car made sense to me because all my urban rides are relatively close to my house. With a regular car, its engine would work for less than ten minutes, which is equivalent to severe use: the oil does not lubricate all engine components properly, and it does not heat to the ideal working temperature, as well as the catalyzer. The direct consequence is an engine that lasts a lot less and emits a lot more.
I asked BMW what it advised me to do, as well as all my readers who also own the company’s PHEVs. Should they select the Max eDrive mode in short distances or still allow the car to choose the best option? The email message is with BMW’s PR department since November 5, and all I heard back was an automatic out of office reply – at least so far.”
T&E’s study answers the question on behalf of BMW. If you allow the combustion engine to enter whenever the car decides it is a good time to do so, you’ll end up having a more pollutant car. It will work in this “severe use” I mentioned multiple times a day.
T&E asked Emission Analytics to perform tests on three of the most popular PHEVs for sale in 2020: the BMW X5, Volvo XC60, and Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. What the tests revealed was that they could emit 28 percent to 89 percent more CO2 than advertised with a full battery, in EV mode, and optimal conditions. The graphic above reveals the BMW X5 was the one with 28 percent more emissions. The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV got the 89 percent result.
If the battery pack is depleted, they can emit between three to eight times more than the values officially informed by the manufacturers. If these cars work in the battery-charging mode, emissions can be three to twelve times higher. According to the graphic, it is the X5 that reaches the highest emission rate, while the Outlander keeps it at the lowest level.
Julia Poliscanova, senior director for clean vehicles at T&E, wants governments to stop giving automakers any sales incentives. She said the EU should stop giving them additional credits when it reviews its targets for 2025 and 2030 in 2021 because they are “fake electric cars, built for lab tests, and tax breaks, not real driving.” Another option would be to make them better.
“Carmakers blame drivers for plug-in hybrids’ high emissions. But the truth is that most PHEVs are just not well made. They have weak electric motors, big, polluting engines, and usually can’t fast charge. The only way plug-ins are going to have a future is if we completely overhaul how we reward them in EU car CO2 tests and regulations. Otherwise, PHEVs will soon join diesel in the dustbin of history.”
In a way, the parallel with diesel cars can be more intense. If PHEV emissions are so much higher than the official numbers inform, that could be a new Dieselgate: an Emissiongate, or even a PHEVgate, if you prefer. Why are they so much higher in Emission Analytics tests than in official ones? We’ll try to find out more about that.
In the meantime, if you intended to buy a PHEV, consider going fully electric if the charging infrastructure in your country is good. If that is not the case, such as here in Portugal, choose a PHEV with the smallest combustion engine available. It should work mostly as a generator, not as something to power the wheels.
If you are already a PHEV owner, like me, make sure you operate in EV mode most of the time. Only allow the car to decide whether to activate the combustion engine or not on long trips – when you are certain that it will work for a long time. That will heat the catalyzer, lubricate internal components properly, and avoid the severe use I mentioned in my text. That’s the price to pay for an insufficient charging network.
Anyway, we hope automakers listen to T&E in the sense of either making PHEVs more efficient and less-pollutant machines. They are meant to be a transition, not a way to hide big engines under an environmentally friendly badge.
The Boring Company’s Las Vegas Convention Center Loop tunnels may be capable of moving over 8,000 passengers per hour, and that may not even be the system’s full capacity. These findings were related in a recent simulation that was shared online, which depicted three operating scenarios for the upcoming high-speed tunnels.
Using PTV Vissim software, a professional traffic simulation program, tunneling enthusiast Phil Harrison modeled how the LVCC Loop would work as a public transport service. The simulation utilized plans from The Boring Company’s official submissions to Clark County to depict the layout of the high-speed tunnels and stations as accurately as possible.
Harrison took a fairly conservative approach, with the simulation capping the number of passengers allowed in each station at just 100 people. This is quite conservative and will likely be exceeded by real-world conditions in the actual LVCC Loop. The tunneling enthusiast described the simulation’s concept and design in his YouTube video’s description.
“At each station, half the bays go to the one of the three stations and the other half to the other station. This allows for direct point to point travel. For each scenario, the input frequency of cars is increased and the maximum passengers allowed to collect in the platform area is 100. The biggest bottleneck is the pedestrian crossing at stations 1 and 3 so have added a theoretical signal and escalator,” Harrison wrote.
To determine the number of people that are moved per hour, the simulation counted the number of pedestrians that successfully exited a station over the space of 60 minutes. Three scenarios were explored in the simulation, and based on the results of each run, it appears that the LVCC Loop holds a lot of potential, showing a capacity to transport a good number of people per hour.
In a “base case” scenario, which involves cars with three passengers traveling through the tunnels at 75 mph, moving around the stations at 9 mph, and dwelling in the loading bays for 60 seconds, the simulation achieved a throughput of 2,160 passengers per hour. Each trip averaged 72 seconds from one end of the LVCC Loop to the other.
A second scenario employed a signaled pedestrian crossing, which allowed cars to navigate stations at 12 mph. Bay dwell time was adjusted to 45 seconds, and four passengers were allowed per vehicle. Under these scenarios, the simulation moved 4,320 passengers per hour, with trips taking an average of 58 seconds.
A third scenario, fondly dubbed “maximum plaid,” featured a system that used escalators that led directly to the Las Vegas Convention Center. Station speeds were at 25 mph, and bay dwell times were listed at 30 seconds. Speeds of the Model 3s in the Loop system was also raised to 140 mph, and four passengers were allowed per vehicle. Under these circumstances, the simulation achieved an impressive throughput of 8,640 people per hour with average trips taking 42 seconds.
Watch a simulation of the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop tunnels in action in the video below.
The Boring Company’s LVCC Loop can move over 8,000 people every hour, simulation shows