Pure BEV Dogma

[swaltner]

I wouldn't use tax code as part of your logic. After all, one was able to deduct a donation to "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" just the same as a donation to any other religious group. OLoPE was setup just to point out how crazy the IRS rules are related to tax deductions. The IRS shouldn't be one's guide as to Truth.

Also, just to be clear, the IRS doesn't call these vehicles EVs (Electric Vehicles). They use the generic phrase of "plug-in electric drive motor vehicle" or "plug-in electric drive vehicle".

 

[scaesare]

A Volt can run with no gas in the tank. It cannot run without a battery with a minimum SOC.

So - A Volt is an EV with a range extending ICE onboard.

Given that the Volt occasionally clutches the ICE in to the gearset, so strictly speaking, no it isn't.

The Prius is a parallel hybrid optimized to favor a greater usage of the ICE. A Volt is a parallel/series hybrid optimized to favor greater usage of the electric motor.

Both good designs, with somewhat differing goals. With careful/limited driving one can force the system to not engage all of it's subsystems/modes, but that doesn't change it's inherent design.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. GM came up with the the term "Extended range EV" to get the cachet (and tax credits) of producing an EV while continuing to put an ICE in every car it builds. It doesn't matter who turns what-- if it has both a battery and an ICE, it's a hybrid. If it also has a plug, it's a plug-in hybrid.

The other contributor here is that GM originally billed the Volt as ONLY using the ICE to drive the generator, an thus a purely series-hybrid design... the "EREV" moniker was attached to it as a highlight of the early discussion of the car while under development.

They then, rather quietly, stopped emphasizing that all the while not disclosing that in order to meet some design goals, the ICE DID in some cases provide torque to the gearset/wheels. They never rescinded the EREV billing, nor were they real up front about it, even to customers.

I have a buddy with two of them, and he was adamant that the engine was never in any way mechanically coupled to the wheels until I had him read it for himself. He was a bit disappointed.

So, I think unfortunately Chevy undermined their own perfectly good design, by giving it a bit of a "marketecture" black eye with the whole EREV thing...

- - - Updated - - -

The facts decide what is what, not some Tesla or Volt fan/owner. The fact is that EV's have no tailpipes. There isn't really anything to argue over. I get that some Volt owners are butthurt over their inferior product, but one gets what they pay for....

That doesn't help things... and rather unnecessary.

It's a pretty slick design, IMO. It allows folks with specific use cases to drastically reduce the amount of fuel they have to use, at a price many can afford.

 

[Doug_G]

Okay I just moved a bunch of posts over to snippiness. Play nice, please.

 

[wws]

... The other contributor here is that GM originally billed the Volt as ONLY using the ICE to drive the generator, an thus a purely series-hybrid design... the "EREV" moniker was attached to it as a highlight of the early discussion of the car while under development.

They then, rather quietly, stopped emphasizing that all the while not disclosing that in order to meet some design goals, the ICE DID in some cases provide torque to the gearset/wheels. They never rescinded the EREV billing, nor were they real up front about it, even to customers.

GM realized that when cruising down the highway at 70 mph in Range Extending mode, they could get a little more efficiency (10-15% per the Chief Engineer of the drivetrain) via that coupling. Net effect is to use _less_ gas than would other wise be the case. I guess one could snip the wire to that clutch to disable the feature. But that would be pretty pointless.

I have a buddy with two of them, and he was adamant that the engine was never in any way mechanically coupled to the wheels until I had him read it for himself. He was a bit disappointed....

He shouldn't be. It is quite a clever design. Gen 2 even more so.

 

[Darren Donovan]

Probably because in my opinion, the Impact was a much better engineered car than the Volt. A company doesn't get to go backwards and get praise from me. There is no other EV other than Tesla that is able to replace a primary car for most people I know. I don't mind reality, and lately this forum needs a huge dose of it. The elitist comments are just silly. There is nothing elitist about the realities of life. I get that Tesla cars are not cheap, but if one wants to not use ANY gas whatsoever, they really don't have much choice as to what car they buy, unless they live in a city and never travel by road.

I for one believe that vehicles like the Volt inhibit adoption of electric cars, because they still rely on gasoline, and could become a long stop-gap to electric cars. This is what the attitude of the current carmakers is, whether anybody likes it or not. Anything that they manufacture without a tailpipe will always have compromises. Nothing personal, it's just their business model.

Inhibit the adoption of electric cars? What are you talking about? People who cannot afford a Tesla can drive a Volt, and experiences how awesome it is to be driving on electric for 40-50 miles. Then they can aspire, save $, to get a full BEV. If you force BEV on the masses, they'll be scared by the lesser range of "affordable" cars like Spark EV, Leaf, Kia Soul. The Volt allows the masses to get a taste of electric driving, while allowing them to use the car in a normal way without range anxiety.

 

[liuping]

Inhibit the adoption of electric cars? What are you talking about? People who cannot afford a Tesla can drive a Volt, and experiences how awesome it is to be driving on electric for 40-50 miles. Then they can aspire, save $, to get a full BEV. If you force BEV on the masses, they'll be scared by the lesser range of "affordable" cars like Spark EV, Leaf, Kia Soul. The Volt allows the masses to get a taste of electric driving, while allowing them to use the car in a normal way without range anxiety.

I like to think of the Volt as an EV with training wheels. It eases them into EV use, without letting range anxiety get in the way of moving forward.

Once people get used to driving the Volt in pure EV mode, and realize how infrequently they actually need more than 50 miles of EV range when you start each day with a "full tank", buying a full BEV with 200+ miles range will be easy for them.

Many Volt owners will turn into Model 3 owners. Several who can afford it have already become Model S owners, myself included.

 

[Saghost]

The other contributor here is that GM originally billed the Volt as ONLY using the ICE to drive the generator, an thus a purely series-hybrid design... the "EREV" moniker was attached to it as a highlight of the early discussion of the car while under development.

They then, rather quietly, stopped emphasizing that all the while not disclosing that in order to meet some design goals, the ICE DID in some cases provide torque to the gearset/wheels. They never rescinded the EREV billing, nor were they real up front about it, even to customers.

I have a buddy with two of them, and he was adamant that the engine was never in any way mechanically coupled to the wheels until I had him read it for himself. He was a bit disappointed.

So, I think unfortunately Chevy undermined their own perfectly good design, by giving it a bit of a "marketecture" black eye with the whole EREV thing...

So you're telling me that you and your buddy would have preferred if GM had built the car without being able to link the engine to the wheels, if it was identical otherwise and ran the engine in all the same modes, with the same EV range but ~10-15% worse gas mileage on the highway - and that you'd consider it more of an EV then?

I don't understand the logic at all. It's an EV with a built in safety net, and when you use the safety net, I want it to be as efficient and effective as possible, myself.

I know this is an argument that never seems to get settled, but in an effort to understand the logic, here's a little Gedankenexperiment...

Joe has a battery powered electric car, say a RAV4 EV. That's an EV for everyone, right?

If Joe decides to transport the engine block for his motorcycle engine in it, is it still an EV?

What if it's the whole engine, with fuel tank and exhaust system and transmission, still just sitting in back?

What if he has a generator attached to it, that he never turns on?

What if he has a generator that he only uses to charge it when parked at his campsite in the mountains?

Is it still an EV if he figures out how to wire the generator to the charger and get the car charging while he drives?

What if he acquires or builds a long ranger style pusher trailer to put his motorcycle engine into?

It's still an EV if the trailer is detached, right? Is it still an EV if he is towing the trailer but never turns it on?

I certainly have an opinion on the subject, but I'm interested to see what the folks who are adamant that the Volt is never an EV have to say about where he crosses the line with his RAV4.
Walter

 

[Krugerrand]

View attachment 100096
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/11/gary-cards-electric-christmas-tree-made-of-vauxhall-ampera-parts-for-the-finale-of-the-vauxhall-ampera-season-1354198995.jpg

Yeah! Just like that.

 

[gregincal]

I agree. GM came up with the the term "Extended range EV" to get the cachet (and tax credits) of producing an EV while continuing to put an ICE in every car it builds. It doesn't matter who turns what-- if it has both a battery and an ICE, it's a hybrid. If it also has a plug, it's a plug-in hybrid.

If it has a plug, it's a plugin car. It can be "fueled" by plugging it in to electricity. As far as I'm concerned that's the important thing. There are better plugin cars and worse plugin cars. This whole latest spat started because the volt was the biggest selling plugin vehicle for October, which it was. The poster said it was the biggest selling EV, which I agree isn't true, but it's equally not true to say it was the biggest selling hybrid, because it wasn't. It was the biggest selling plugin car.

 

[liuping]

PHEV-X (X=number of full power EV miles before going to generator) seems a more reasonable way to write this. We know from this it's a plug in car, it's a hybrid of some kind, and that it can go X miles in 100% EV mode before the backup kicks in.

That is a very clear and useful way to refer to PHEV's. I wish it could be universally adopted when referring to plugins.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So you're telling me that you and your buddy would have preferred if GM had built the car without being able to link the engine to the wheels, if it was identical otherwise and ran the engine in all the same modes, with the same EV range but ~10-15% worse gas mileage on the highway - and that you'd consider it more of an EV then?

I don't understand the logic at all. It's an EV with a built in safety net, and when you use the safety net, I want it to be as efficient and effective as possible, myself.

That was how GM billed it and a lot of people liked the idea. It fit with the image of an EV with a generator. However, if the ICE provides any mechanical assistance, that was considered a "hybrid" in most people's book. Technically, however, even without mechanical assistance, it would be considered a series hybrid and still a hybrid.

I know this is an argument that never seems to get settled, but in an effort to understand the logic, here's a little Gedankenexperiment...

Joe has a battery powered electric car, say a RAV4 EV. That's an EV for everyone, right?

If Joe decides to transport the engine block for his motorcycle engine in it, is it still an EV?

...

I certainly have an opinion on the subject, but I'm interested to see what the folks who are adamant that the Volt is never an EV have to say about where he crosses the line with his RAV4.
Walter

First of all, none of your examples are considered a hybrid because none of the fixtures you specify are permanently attached to the vehicle (they are not a part of the vehicle).

Now let's assume they *are* permanently attached to the vehicle, in which case the question has been asked before and it was easily answered looking at SAE's definition of hybrid:
"A vehicle with two or more energy storage systems both of which must provide propulsion power – either together or independently".

The following examples would be hybrids, because it is using two or more energy storage systems (the gasoline tank and battery pack) to provide propulsive power.
"What if he has a generator that he only uses to charge it when parked at his campsite in the mountains?

Is it still an EV if he figures out how to wire the generator to the charger and get the car charging while he drives?"

Related side questions I have seen asked:

Is an EV that uses a fuel based heater (like some Volvo c30 EVs and buses) considered a hybrid?
The answer is no, because the fuel isn't being used for propulsion.

Can a typical ICE car be considered a hybrid because it has a battery?
The answer is no, because the battery isn't being used for propulsion.

 

[Breezy]

PHEV-X (X=number of full power EV miles before going to generator) seems a more reasonable way to write this. We know from this it's a plug in car, it's a hybrid of some kind, and that it can go X miles in 100% EV mode before the backup kicks in.

Most PHEVs would be PHEV-0 by that definition, since they don't have any full power EV miles before going to generator. Only the Volt, ELR and i3 REx offer full power EV miles.

There was a guy who suggested the term REEV, or Range Extended Electric Vehicle. His name escapes me at the moment.

 

[scaesare]

GM realized that when cruising down the highway at 70 mph in Range Extending mode, they could get a little more efficiency (10-15% per the Chief Engineer of the drivetrain) via that coupling. Net effect is to use _less_ gas than would other wise be the case. I guess one could snip the wire to that clutch to disable the feature. But that would be pretty pointless.

No doubt it's a useful design point.... it's just one that move is in to a parallel hybrid territory, not the "ICE only powers the generator" that was touted by GM, and that they seem to try and sweep under the rug.

He shouldn't be. It is quite a clever design. Gen 2 even more so.

His disappointment stemmed from being rather misled... not in the car itself.

 

[liuping]

Most PHEVs would be PHEV-0 by that definition, since they don't have any full power EV miles before going to generator. Only the Volt, ELR and i3 REx offer full power EV miles.

There was a guy who suggested the term REEV, or Range Extended Electric Vehicle. His name escapes me at the moment.

If it's PHEV-0, it's just a Plugin Hybrid. Ideally, PHEV should be reserved for cars that can run in EV only mode at highway speeds.

 

[Drucifer]

Given that the Volt occasionally clutches the ICE in to the gearset, so strictly speaking, no it isn't.

It only clutches the ICE in if the ICE is running in range extended mode. The ICE is never clutched in if there is sufficient SOC for the drive mode the car is currently in. The fact that the ICE can be clutched in under certain circumstances changes nothing - as it is done to only avoid the energy losing trip of "Engine - Generator - Battery - Motor" and bypass the mechanical-electrical-mechanical conversion when it reduces efficiency.

 

[Jeff N]

So you're telling me that you and your buddy would have preferred if GM had built the car without being able to link the engine to the wheels, if it was identical otherwise and ran the engine in all the same modes, with the same EV range but ~10-15% worse gas mileage on the highway - and that you'd consider it more of an EV then?

I don't understand the logic at all. It's an EV with a built in safety net, and when you use the safety net, I want it to be as efficient and effective as possible, myself.

I know this is an argument that never seems to get settled, but in an effort to understand the logic, here's a little Gedankenexperiment...

LOL. Yes, it's all very bizarre. You might as well ask people how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I never cease to be amazed at people who draw a critically important distinction between whether the Volt is a parallel (or series-parallel hybrid) versus a series hybrid. Folks, it's a hybrid either way when it's burning gasoline after the battery no longer has usable charge. The good news is that the 2016 Volt always has a mechanical path between the engine and the wheels whenever the gas engine is running so no more silly misunderstandings about it only having a mechanical path under certain conditions like driving over 70 mph. The 2016 Volt no longer has a series mode. The truth is that the older Volt has a mechanical path when the engine is running at vehicle speeds over 40 mph about 3-4 times more often than it would be in series mode -- at least that's what happens in the EPA's US06 test cycle according to GM engineers. In reality, few Volt owners can tell when their car has a mechanical path to the wheels or not which is why so many are confused. So, why are we arguing about it if almost nobody can tell the difference?

And again, GM wrote their SAE paper with their proposed EREV definition in 2007 which is the same year that the Volt concept car was first shown and that was also the year that GM committed to making the Volt be an actual product. The Volt's series-parallel transmission was not known publicly until September 2010. This SAE paper's EREV definition does not state any requirements about how the range extender operates or powers the wheels. It only requires the car to default to EV mode when it starts up with usable charge in the battery, it requires the range extender to stay off regardless of vehicle speed or accelerator position, and it requires the car be freeway capable as defined by a CARB document. That's it. Issues regarding engine startup due to sub-15F temperatures or engine lubrication maintenance mode every 6 weeks are out of scope of that published EREV definition. If you think those are relevant factors that prevent a Volt from being an "EREV" then you are making up your own silly EREV definition.

 

[JRP3]

The problem with this statement is that you are essentially saying that the members of this board, who generally have a certain mindset and opinion as well as an understandably high regard for their very expensive long range BEV, are the ones who determine what the terminology is and will guard that zealously to conform with your point of view.

Actually, no. First, as I said, I don't own a Tesla, but second, and more importantly, there are pre-existing definitions of terminology which denote the Volt as a plugin hybrid. None of us here created those definitions, though GM marketing did create their own term of EREV to try and muddy the waters. I object to their marketing efforts and the confusion they caused, just as I object to people perpetuating that confusion by claiming that a car with an ICE is an EV.

 

[Drucifer]

Good discussion greatly improved the last few pages of recent comments. There are some here who have both Volt and Model S in parallel, or who have had the Volt before Model S in series. It is hard to really make sense of the Volt without living with it for a while, as it is a fairly complex car in it's implementation of drive train (although really no more complex than these 7-9 speed transmissions that seem all the rage these days). The Tesla Model S is much easier to explain. One motor/inverter set per axle -or- just one set on the rear axle. Done.

 

[flankspeed8]

That is a very clear and useful way to refer to PHEV's. I wish it could be universally adopted when referring to plugins.

I would say this convention should be used for all BEV's also as there is such a wide gap in range. The The Roadster would be a BEV244, Models S70 would be a BEV240 the S85 BEV265 The Leaf would be a BEV75, eGolf a BEV83 and the Soul would be a BEV93, etc. In the interest of fair comparison that could be used across the entire EV genre. just a thought.

 

[woof]

Saghost has an interesting thought experiment. I'll play!

Joe has a battery powered electric car, say a RAV4 EV. That's an EV for everyone, right?

If Joe decides to transport the engine block for his motorcycle engine in it, is it still an EV?

What if it's the whole engine, with fuel tank and exhaust system and transmission, still just sitting in back?

What if he has a generator attached to it, that he never turns on?

What if he has a generator that he only uses to charge it when parked at his campsite in the mountains?
Walter

All the above represent an EV to me. Well the "generator attached to it"...if the "it" there means the engine but the output of the generator is NOT connected to the battery, it's an EV. The moment the generator output can be connected to the battery while moving (even if the generator is off), is when it magically transforms into a hybrid electric drive.

Is it still an EV if he figures out how to wire the generator to the charger and get the car charging while he drives?

Nope. That's where the line got crossed to hybrid. The moment the ICE can be on while the car is moving, makes it hybrid to me.

What if he acquires or builds a long ranger style pusher trailer to put his motorcycle engine into?

Depends. If the output of the generator is connected to the battery, it's a hybrid. If it isn't, it's just an EV pulling a trailer.

It's still an EV if the trailer is detached, right?

Right.

Is it still an EV if he is towing the trailer but never turns it on?

Depends. If the generator is not connected to the battery, then it's an EV. If the generator is connected to the battery, it's a hybrid.

If the battery can be recharged from an external source (regen doesn't count, that's internal) while driving, it's a hybrid. If the car can be moved from a power source other than the battery, it's a hybrid. Thus an EV being pushed by a person: hybrid. An EV being pulled by a horse: hybrid. An EV being dropped from a helicopter: smashed.