Okay, put this way I can see your point. I don't think there's any argument that the Physical Architecture of the system is a Series/Parallel Hybrid, albeit with a much larger battery than normal, unusually large motors, and a rather small engine.
However...
The Operating Strategy of the car keeps the engine off in normal operation, which results in a user experience that's very much typical EV for the vast majority of people most of the time - with more EV power and faster EV acceleration than say a Nissan Leaf - and actually more daily EV miles per car on average, too.
Again, "in normal operation" for the first ~15% of it's range. So it's very much dependent on the driver deciding to only drive it a fraction of it's rated range.
So what's important to the public? The User Experience, or the details of the Physical Architecture?
Do iPhone users care that they only have 70% of the battery mAh of "comparable" Android phones and 2 cores where the Android boasts four or even eight?
I would argue that they care more that they have longer battery lives and the apps open and function faster, because of Apple's more efficient (and yes, more restrictive) software instead.
Agreed...iPhone users I suspect value the user experience more so than technical specs, hence their willingness to pay a premium for a platform that is often inferior from a specification standpoint than other platforms.
But I'd turn that question around: "How many Android users care about the phone architecture and specs more than the 'Apple user experience'?" I'd say "most".
Thus, I would argue that although the Physical Architecture is as you say a variation of series/parallel plug in hybrid, the EV User Experience is the relevant defining trait - at least for the majority of drivers in the majority of miles
Given that there' obviously a contingent that cares about both, the answer to satisfying both is to correctly define what the design actually
IS, and then extol the unique virtues of it..
"BEV" is a category with many vehicles of vastly different capabilities within it depending on battery type, battery capacity, motors power, cooling capability number of motors, charging capability, etc... So advertise what your vehicle can do, and emphasize it's positive aspects, but don't ignore the fact there's an accepted definition of it's top-level category.
In the same way "Hybrid" is a category with vehicles of many different capabilities depending on battery type, drivetrain layout, ICE type/size, power-split implementation, etc... So again extol the virtues of your specific implementation within that category, but don't make up new categories or misrepresent what it is, when existing accepted categories already exist.
Be technically corre3ct, and advertise the user experience. That way you satisfy both camps.
That's why I'm not comfortable with the endless "just a hybrid" rants we see here - the architecture may be hybrid, but the experience is anything but, and a whole lot of owners are finding the Volt to be a gateway drug to a Tesla (including me, when my X shows up in a couple weeks.)
Honestly, take a look at this thread. I don't think many folks are denigrating the Volt and saying it's "Just a hybrid", as if that's a dirty word. It's probably the best hybrid out there. Just as the Tesla is the best BEV out there. My opinion is that Volt owners are a bit sensitive to the subject, and I quite honestly lay most of that blame at the feet of GM, who put the Volt enthusiasts/owners on the defensive with their misleading portrayal.
I suggest folks don't take criticism of the attempts to correct GM's disingenuousness as criticisms of the car or it's owners.
you can substitute some insanely heavy hamster wheel to somehow power the Model X under a very specific set of circumstances that happens around 1% of total driving time instead).
