Pure BEV Dogma

[richkae]

IMHO, the problem stems from Toyota starting out with a missleading marketing term calling the basic Prius a hybrid. That car is 100% gasoline powered vehicle. The battery + electric motor serves as a temporary storage and reuse system for reducing the energy loss during breaking via the regenerative breaking system. In other words it is a fuel-saving mechanism for gasoline vehicles.

On the other hand, the Volt deserves the name hybrid, because it can be powered by either electricity or gasoline (or combination of the two). The plugin-prius may argue for the title hybrid, although due to the extremely limited pure-EV range, its more of a gimmick than a real functionality.

What I am trying to say is, that I understand the frustration of the Volt owners who want to differentiate their vehicle from the likes of the Prius, the Volt is indeed a different category.
Unfortunately, the marketing-hype induced incorrect naming is already stuck with the Prius, therefore it is a difficult to fix situation. But calling the Volt simply an EV is just as incorrect as calling the Prius a hybrid.

Agree on the nomenclature. The whole point of a hybrid is that you can either plug it in or gas it up. An EV must be plugged in. A car you can't plug in is just a gas car.
The Prius got there first, but at best it should be "a hybrid you can't plug in".

I disagree that the limited pure EV range of the Prius makes it a gimmick. For some people 11 miles is a useful EV range. If my household had one, the 11 mile EV range would cover a little under 1/2 the trips made by the household and allow at my estimation about 60% of the total miles driven to be electric, versus about 80% of the miles in a Volt.
The Volt is better in this regard, but it lacks in other areas - like the critical 5th seat.

 

[scaesare]

The initial industry precedent was set when the term hybrid was selected to describe describe a car's power train. The term was used correctly, but specifically to drive trains.

Subsequently, vehicles released that could accept multiple fuel types (both gas and/or externally supplied electricity), they were described as plug in hybrids (PHEV). ("Flex Fuel" was already used for vehicles accepting liquid fuel blends, i.e. gas and/or ethanol).

Cars powered solely by externally supplied electricity are electric vehicle (EVs).

Within these major categories are sub-categories, such as parallel-drive or serial-drive or combination parallel/serial drive. There are several commercially sold implementations of strictly parallel-drive platforms. There are fewer serial-drive vehicles. There are several combo platforms.

All of the existing platforms have varying implementations with slightly differing designs, modes of operation, characteristics, behaviors, etc... all in the name of optimizing some parameter: economy, power, performance, range, etc... There are already different transmission types, clutch arrangements, control mechanisms, motor/generator combos, and the like. Yet they are all categorized as one of the above.

The Volt doesn't introduce another fuel source. It doesn't introduce another engine type. It doesn't introduce something other than serial, parallel or combo. It merely implements some design choices differently in order to optimize some parameters differently. It's a combo hybrid that optimized to favor initial electrical motor usage, and operating in parallel mode when conditions dictate that would incur less loss than operating as a series-only platform.

Thus, if there are already a number of cars that are categorized effectively by existing classification names despite implementation differences, why should another moniker be introduced just for the Volt when it is merely a differently implemented combo-hybrid?

I don't think it should.

I suspect GM wants to because, early on in it's development, it was billed as a series-only platform.... this was at a time when such were still rare, and the idea that the ICE never drove the wheels made it "feel" more advanced and "greener" than other platforms. It wasn't yet known if this could be achieved effectively and yet still maintain a superior efficiency. Later in the development it was found that engaging the ICE in a parallel arrangement would be advantageous. As such I suspect GM felt they lost some "splash" with the Volt. Given the reaction of people here (as well as owners who are surprised the cars they own are not strictly-serial platforms), it seems they were right.

So EREV was born. It attempts to take an implementation method that already falls in to existing classifications and make it something larger than that. As such, I consider it "marketecture". Of course that's what marketers do: attempt to create unique value in order to drive sales. That doesn't mean as a person interested in the actual technical details I have to believe it. I rather expected most folks here wouldn't either. "Hybrid Synergy Drive" doesn't mean anything to me either.

All of that said, I repeat that I think it's a good car. It has some advanced design aspects. The implementation is clever. But it's not in a new category... that will have to wait until they add the Mr. Fusion option...

Here's an interesting thought: If next year's plug-in Prius implemented a push button that changed the balance so it favored a larger battery far more initially, what would it be?

 

[Breezy]

It's a combo hybrid that optimized to favor initial electrical motor usage, and operating in parallel mode when conditions dictate that would incur less loss than operating as a series-only platform.

You see, there's something not quite right about that statement. The Volt doesn't just "favor" initial initial electrical motor usage, it uses the electric motor(s) exclusively. It's an EV until the battery runs out. It has a gas engine, but it doesn't use it until the battery is depleted.

Thus, if there are already a number of cars that are categorized effectively by existing classification names despite implementation differences, why should another moniker be introduced just for the Volt when it is merely a differently implemented combo-hybrid?

Because new terminology is introduced all the time when it's more descriptive than existing terminology. By just using the term PHEV alone, it confuses otherwise knowledgeable people about how the Volt operates. EREV is more accurate, so why not use it?

Here's an interesting thought: If next year's plug-in Prius implemented a push button that changed the balance so it favored a larger battery far more initially, what would it be?

It would still be a PHEV. If that button caused the car to use the battery exclusively (no engine), and the car could still be driven to the limits of its normal performance envelope, in that case it would be an EREV.

 

[JRP3]

Because new terminology is introduced all the time when it's more descriptive than existing terminology. By just using the term PHEV alone, it confuses otherwise knowledgeable people about how the Volt operates. EREV is more accurate, so why not use it?

Because reality has proven that not to be the case. The Volt has probably more confusion around it than any other vehicle in history. GM marketing is fully to blame for that, including their efforts to create a new category for the car.

 

[scaesare]

You see, there's something not quite right about that statement. The Volt doesn't just "favor" initial initial electrical motor usage, it uses the electric motor(s) exclusively. It's an EV until the battery runs out. It has a gas engine, but it doesn't use it until the battery is depleted.

Or because temperature dictates. Or because mountain mode is enabled.

But, sure... if you object to "favor" (although correct from a definition standpoint) substitute what you'd like. How about "initial exclusive use"?

It doesn't change the premise that it's a hybrid platform that initially exclusively uses the battery.

Because new terminology is introduced all the time when it's more descriptive than existing terminology. By just using the term PHEV alone, it confuses otherwise knowledgeable people about how the Volt operates. EREV is more accurate, so why not use it?

Certainly descriptive terms are useful when appropriate. Attempting to introduce them when an existing term suffices only serves to dilute understanding. Imagine if there a new category for every model out there simply because their implementation details were slightly different.. categories exist to cantain many items in them. It doesn't make sense to add a new top-level category if Honda decides to make the Insight engine for 90 seconds every other Thursday to condition the battery.

If folks want to acknowledge that it's a combo-hybrid that implements Chevy's brand of secret-sauce tuning called "EREV" then fine.. we can ignore that like VTEC, DOHC, SuperAweseomeMax, and all the other marketing terms that attempt to make one brand of ICE perferable to another. They all, however are ICE engines. Chevy is attempting to say "EREV is NOT hybrid, it's something different!", and people are buying it for whatever reason.

Finally, when the ICE engages, it's not necessarily only Extending the Range of an Electric Vehicle, it actually can and does provide locomotive force to the wheels via mechanical means.

It would still be a PHEV. If that button caused the car to use the battery exclusively (no engine), and the car could still be driven to the limits of its normal performance envelope, in that case it would be an EREV.

Which proves my point: simply changing operational characteristics of a like platform doesn't a new platform make.

 

[Breezy]

The Volt has probably more confusion around it than any other vehicle in history.

Who could disagree with that . The marketplace definitely prefers a simple message.

 

[Breezy]

Or because temperature dictates. Or because mountain mode is enabled.

But, sure... if you object to "favor" (although correct from a definition standpoint) substitute what you'd like. How about "initial exclusive use"?

It doesn't change the premise that it's a hybrid platform that initially exclusively uses the battery.





Certainly descriptive terms are useful when appropriate. Attempting to introduce them when an existing term suffices only serves to dilute understanding. Imagine if there a new category for every model out there simply because their implementation details were slightly different.. categories exist to cantain many items in them. It doesn't make sense to add a new top-level category if Honda decides to make the Insight engine for 90 seconds every other Thursday to condition the battery.

If folks want to acknowledge that it's a combo-hybrid that implements Chevy's brand of secret-sauce tuning called "EREV" then fine.. we can ignore that like VTEC, DOHC, SuperAweseomeMax, and all the other marketing terms that attempt to make one brand of ICE perferable to another. They all, however are ICE engines. Chevy is attempting to say "EREV is NOT hybrid, it's something different!", and people are buying it for whatever reason.

Finally, when the ICE engages, it's not necessarily only Extending the Range of an Electric Vehicle, it actually can and does provide locomotive force to the wheels via mechanical means.



Which proves my point: simply changing operational characteristics of a like platform doesn't a new platform make.

To the driver who doesn't allow her battery to become depleted, the Volt is an EV. She needn't select any modes or do anything other than press the power button and drive, and the car is an EV. The only other vehicle like that, currently, is the i3 REx. I think that's enough of a distinction to warrant a specific category. Of course there shouldn't be specific categories for VTEC and DOHC; those are very clearly variants of internal combustion engines. There shouldn't be specific categories for EVs that use permanent magnet or induction motors either.

For efficiency reasons, which is a good reason to do things, GM chose to use the ICE in range extending mode to provide some motive force to assist the traction motors under certain low load conditions. The ICE is not required to propel the vehicle at any time, but GM chose to use it. If that's the point that makes it not an EV in the minds of some, I can only say I'll take efficiency over dogma any day.

 

[JRP3]

I think the existence of an ICE on board is what makes it not an EV, but a hybrid. It's sort of the basic definition of a hybrid, two separate sources of on board energy. As has been said, it can act like an EV, but it can never be an EV.

 

[mknox]

Do you really want a race to the bottom by choosing terminology based on what you think today's layperson comprehends?

My preference is to educate and elevate the uniformed with accurate terminology, rather than make everything nonsensical by corrupting terminology based on the financial motivations of marketing folk.

I don't believe it's a race to the bottom. The average consumer just doesn't care about the little nuances and distinctions we're talking about here. The fact is that the term "Hybrid" has become synonymous with cars like the Prius which don't plug in, and "Electric" with cars that do. Even in the pure BEV world, there are DC motors with permanent magnets and AC induction motors as in the Tesla. Should we get all bent out of shape over whether it's an AC electric or a DC electric, and come up with specific nomenclature for that too? I would say not.

I think "Range Extended Electric" or "Electric with a Range Extender" makes perfect sense, and is easy for the consumer to understand, even if not 100% perfectly accurate. Our company has a Chevy Volt and we are promoting EV adoption. We refer to the Volt as an "Electric Car" and even have badging on the side to this effect.

 

[roblab]

I don't believe it's a race to the bottom. The average consumer just doesn't care about the little nuances and distinctions we're talking about here. The fact is that the term "Hybrid" has become synonymous with cars like the Prius which don't plug in, and "Electric" with cars that do. Even in the pure BEV world, there are DC motors with permanent magnets and AC induction motors as in the Tesla. Should we get all bent out of shape over whether it's an AC electric or a DC electric, and come up with specific nomenclature for that too? I would say not.

I think "Range Extended Electric" or "Electric with a Range Extender" makes perfect sense, and is easy for the consumer to understand, even if not 100% perfectly accurate. Our company has a Chevy Volt and we are promoting EV adoption. We refer to the Volt as an "Electric Car" and even have badging on the side to this effect.

What about having "PUREBRED" on the car? Everyone knows what that is. Purebred dogs, horses, cattle, as opposed to mixed mongrels. Right now, I hear "EV", vs. "EREV", "PZEV" (which is not electric AT ALL), etc., which means very little to the layperson. It would be more than plain, if that were the case, when someone was shopping for an "electric", that a hybrid, no matter what other letters were mixed in, wasn't pure. I personally am not promoting "EV adoption", but BEV purebred adoption. If someone gets all excited about their new Plug in Prius, Volt, or REEV i8, I just look at them and say, "Baby steps. You'll have a purebred one of these days". Like trainer wheels to a "real" bike. Sure, it's a bike. Baby steps are baby steps, and I encourage people to grow.

It's only the non EV manufacturers who want this confusion and obfuscation. They would have a hard time making it sound like they are trying if the real battery EVs had "Pure BEV" or "Purebred" on the back.

Or do like Tesla. Don't put any little chrome letters anywhere, don't advertise any little secret initials (Cadillac comes to mind!). Just have a car that blows everything else away.

 

[scaesare]

To the driver who doesn't allow her battery to become depleted, the Volt is an EV.

It's pretty clear that the expectation is that 40 miles of range wouldn't be enough for a good portion of use cases, so they added an ICE. That makes it a hybrid.

For every driver that goes less than 40 miles, there's one that goes more than 80. So what if the the average number of miles on Volts as a whole is incurred with the ICE running, does that make it a gas car? No, it goes both ways.

For efficiency reasons, which is a good reason to do things..

It absolutely is a good reason. The entire reason for being for the entire segment of cars is efficiency. It doesn't change what they are though.

- - - Updated - - -

Right now, I hear "EV", vs. "EREV", "PZEV" ...

Please don't get me started on PZEV...

- - - Updated - - -

The fact is that the term "Hybrid" has become synonymous with cars like the Prius which don't plug in, and "Electric" with cars that do.

"Plug In Hybrid" seems pretty common and well understood by most folks (even the "layperson") I talk to.

I think "Range Extended Electric" or "Electric with a Range Extender" makes perfect sense

Again, I ask: If the next Prius is capable of going 36.72 miles on it's new larger battery pack before the ICE kicks in, an nothing else about the platform architecture changes, has it magically becom an EV?

 

[JRP3]

The average consumer just doesn't care about the little nuances and distinctions we're talking about here.

I agree, and they likely don't care about the distinction between EREV and PHEV, or under what specific conditions and motor operating modes a car is one or the other.

Even in the pure BEV world, there are DC motors with permanent magnets and AC induction motors as in the Tesla. Should we get all bent out of shape over whether it's an AC electric or a DC electric, and come up with specific nomenclature for that too? I would say not.

Indeed, and in fact you seem to be making the same argument that many of us are, that a special term is not needed for the Volt, when PHEV already covers it.

Our company has a Chevy Volt and we are promoting EV adoption. We refer to the Volt as an "Electric Car" and even have badging on the side to this effect.

And undoubtedly adding to the confusion by badging a car with a gasoline motor as an EV. How could it not?

 

[scaesare]

I agree, and they likely don't care about the distinction between EREV and PHEV, or under what specific conditions and motor operating modes a car is one or the other. Indeed, and in fact you seem to be making the same argument that many of us are, that a special term is not needed for the Volt, when PHEV already covers it.


And undoubtedly adding to the confusion by badging a car with a gasoline motor as an EV. How could it not?

This. x3.

 

[rcc]

To the driver who doesn't allow her battery to become depleted, the Volt is an EV. She needn't select any modes or do anything other than press the power button and drive, and the car is an EV. The only other vehicle like that, currently, is the i3 REx. I think that's enough of a distinction to warrant a specific category. Of course there shouldn't be specific categories for VTEC and DOHC; those are very clearly variants of internal combustion engines. There shouldn't be specific categories for EVs that use permanent magnet or induction motors either.
.

This argument doesn't make sense. Wikipedia says the plug-in Prius will go 11 miles on pure battery - and I'm guessing I have to keep the speed low. So if I buy a plug-in Prius and only drive it <11 miles per trip at low speeds (local grocery store, etc.), does that make it an EV?

Most people would say no. Your reasoning says yes.

Another example - if have a machine gun and I only use it to fire single shots, does that mean it's not machine gun?

Bottom line - we categorize something by what it is, what it can do, not how it's actually used.

 

[dsm363]

This argument doesn't make sense. Wikipedia says the plug-in Prius will go 11 miles on pure battery - and I'm guessing I have to keep the speed low. So if I buy a plug-in Prius and only drive it <11 miles per trip at low speeds (local grocery store, etc.), does that make it an EV?

Most people would say no. Your reasoning says yes.

Another example - if have a machine gun and I only use it to fire single shots, does that mean it's not machine gun?

Bottom line - we categorize something by what it is, what it can do, not how it's actually used.

Yes!

For all practical purposes for a Volt driver than never drives more than 40 miles a day that car is an EV but that doesn't make it an EV. It might be a gasoline powered backup EV but the car is still capable of using gas so is some form of a PHEV.

 

[Jaff]

..."it's not a pizza until you put it into the oven..."

...it's a pizza as soon as you put your hands in the dough"...

:biggrin::wink:

 

[mknox]

And undoubtedly adding to the confusion by badging a car with a gasoline motor as an EV. How could it not?

It's working for us. We take the car to shows and events and are raising awareness of electrified transportation. We still encounter lots of folks who have never even heard of the Volt, and we can start a conversation about "electric vehicles" and then get in to the differences between pure electric and all the others. From a pure technical point of view, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but from an awareness point of view, where I'm dealing with people who are amazed that the electric plug is not for a block heater, keeping it very simple (at first) is important and working. This is what marketing is (or should be) about too... and I again say "electric with range extender" is simple and easy to comprehend.

 

[dsm363]

Electric with gasoline range extender would be better. Highlights that gasoline is still on board and used to extend range.

 

[mknox]

Electric with gasoline range extender would be better. Highlights that gasoline is still on board and used to extend range.

Sure, although most people "get" that the range extender is a gasoline fueled ICE.

 

[Breezy]

Bottom line - we categorize something by what it is, what it can do, not how it's actually used.

Agreed. You can drive any car up to the top of a hill, shut off the engine and let it coast down. That doesn’t make it a “zero emission vehicle.” But the point is that the Volt is designed to be driven under all normal conditions as an electric vehicle. The PIP is not. You have to change your driving behavior to force it into that role, or select a special mode and accept reduced performance.

The Volt doesn’t require any additional steps or modifications to behavior to make it an electric vehicle, because it is one.