-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pure BEV Dogma
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Someone with a shorter commute without highway travel could use a plugin Prius without gasoline as well. Use does not define the vehicle.
That's not at all useful. You selectively chose 16kWh as the "base" pack size for the S just because it matches the Volt pack size, ignoring the fact that the entire pack is used to produce the power for the vehicle. It would be like saying an ICE with a 15 gallon gas tank that only uses 2 gallons on a daily basis has a 2 gallon tank with a 13 gallon range extender.
Drucifer
Active Member
A statement I would agree with if the driver replaced the 2 gallons every night at home before embarking on the next day.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Drucifer
Active Member
Sorry to disappoint. Not kidding at all. But you still have 100% ICE just as you have 100% BEV with Model S. Black and White is easy. Grey is harder to define.
The problem with our communication is there are two parts to this chat.
1. Vehicle Attributes
2. Use Case / Operating
We can all agree that the Volt is a hybrid by design and the TMS is a BEV.
So say we charge our Tesla from solar panels and drive with a light touch. Say we charge our Tesla from coal based grid power and haul a$$.
Neither of these change the nature of the object / car. They do change the environmental and potential safety outcome of the car.
If you are willing to look exclusively at #1 only, I am agreeable to most of the comments here (except the Volt being an ICE based hybrid, when it is a BEV based hybrid).
But I have trouble looking at #1 without looking at #2.
In my use case #2 is (2a) daily commute of 32 +/- miles and (2b) an occasional road trip. I have a Level 2 EVSE at home.
So, I judge cars on based on their operating characteristics in 2a primarily, and then 2b.
You can use your own use case as that would be valid for you.
The problem with our communication is there are two parts to this chat.
1. Vehicle Attributes
2. Use Case / Operating
We can all agree that the Volt is a hybrid by design and the TMS is a BEV.
So say we charge our Tesla from solar panels and drive with a light touch. Say we charge our Tesla from coal based grid power and haul a$$.
Neither of these change the nature of the object / car. They do change the environmental and potential safety outcome of the car.
If you are willing to look exclusively at #1 only, I am agreeable to most of the comments here (except the Volt being an ICE based hybrid, when it is a BEV based hybrid).
But I have trouble looking at #1 without looking at #2.
In my use case #2 is (2a) daily commute of 32 +/- miles and (2b) an occasional road trip. I have a Level 2 EVSE at home.
So, I judge cars on based on their operating characteristics in 2a primarily, and then 2b.
You can use your own use case as that would be valid for you.
Last edited:
A PIP would barely get to my wifes favorite grocery store and back on one charge. Not even in consideration. The one family I know that owns one bought it simply for the green HOV sticker.
Indeed most platform architectures have design choices/tradeoffs that dictate performance characteristics. This isn't limited to hybrids. For example:
At what speed does my ICE achieve advertised MPG? At what RPM is peak HP attained? What is the range-impact to my BEV with cold-temp pack heating? What is the battery only range of my hybrid?
However a new category isn't created for every variation within an existing classification. Everybody understands there are different power curves for cars an ICE. There are different real world battery ranges for a BEV. There are varying operational characteristics for hybrids.
This is what specifications, marketing, etc... handle: emphasizing the relative merits of the platform in question. Creating a new classification for every variation isn't the answer.
Occasionally a new architecture arises that requires a new top-level classification, but that's relatively rare, and only useful if the acrchitecture isn't already covered by an existing classification.
The problem with that is two-fold:
1- There's already upper-level classification for which the Volt fits - Hybrid
2- Attempting to use the name Extended Range Electric Vehicle causes confusion as it identifies the vehicle in a different classification
Both humans and dolphins are of the class mammal, as they have a common "architecture" in that they breath air, have hair, give live birth, etc... As they also have variations is their range of characteristics (primarily land vs. water dwelling, etc...), it's useful to further differentiate them as individual species and a subset of mammals.
It would be incorrect, and misleading, to call humans "Extended Lung Capacity Reptiles" even though we both breath air, as the rest of the architecture doesn't match.
As such, EREV seems to be a "marketecture" term more than anything else. It seems to have resulted from GM's ambition to create something unique in the market (a true series hybrid) that didn't quite come to fruition, and at the same time distance itself from the "hybrid" moniker.
Unfortunately this simply has led to confusion, and imprecision in discussing the actual technical merits of the platform.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
#2 is irrelevant to the discussion, since it's highly dependent on individual situations, and it's just something some Volt owners have tried to introduce into the discussion to avoid the actual topic.
I've moved old ICE's around the yard by cranking the starter motor only while in gear, which I then "recharged from the grid". Another "EV with gas range extender"
Drucifer
Active Member
Use case is irrelevant, unless you actually plan to use the car. Then it becomes relevant.
A gun is a gun, we all agree. The use case becomes important if it is used for hunting, or target practice, or used for murder. As long as it is always holstered, it is just an object to be defined and nothing more.
A gun is a gun, we all agree. The use case becomes important if it is used for hunting, or target practice, or used for murder. As long as it is always holstered, it is just an object to be defined and nothing more.
It's certainly relevant in the context of this thread, which is determining what's categorized as a BEV.
That's dictated by design an architecture, not a subset of users, who in turn only use a subset of it's features.
If you only use the scope of your gun, it's still designed and classified as a gun, not a telescope.
Last edited:
Drucifer
Active Member
I never claimed a Volt was a BEV. The Volt is an EV based series hybrid that can operate as a parallel hybrid once the SOC is at the lower limit.
Electricfan
Active Member
Wonder if Bonnie still feels the same today as she did in 2012 when she started this thread? Volts have driven over a billion miles, with 629 million of those all-electric. This was as of Oct of 2014.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/10/one-billion-miles-driven-chevy-volts/
It's the suggestion that:
Drucifer said:
which is problematic.
(B)EV's and Hybrids are typically considered different architectures.
Thus to use the marketing designation EREV, implies that it's not a hybrid, and is primarily an EV. For a car that achives 90% of it's stated operational range using gasoline, that's disingenuous at best.
It's unfortunate Chevy jumped the gun by making a big deal what they ultimately didn't accomplish, as then they had to save face. Things would be much more straightforward if they had simply embraced what is probably one of the most advanced series/parallal-hybrid design being sold.
Use case is irrelevant to vehicle classification, not how much the car can be used like an EV. A Volt can function basically just like a BEV in the right use scenario. Can your Volt drive 200 miles without a drop of gas in less than 4 hours? Might not totally be an EV in that scenario. It's still a great car. Why there is the need to create a new term to try and confuse the issue is beyond me.
But, but, but.... Any definition of EREV inherently implies that the vehicle also has a hybrid mode of behavior. That's just built-in to the acronym.
As the I assume intended to be joking example above of a Model S being a 16kWh BEV with a 69 kWh range extender shows, the extended range could be another battery of the exact same chemistry. Is that a hybrid too? It's range would be extended by an additional battery and would use the exact same motor then so no second method of population. Doesn't seem to fit the definition of hybrid but is an extended range EV.
That is the crux of the problem. It may imply to you, but the acronym certainly does not contain the word hybrid. To a person new to the entire electric/hybrid transportation may rightly assume, from the acronym, that the car has no ICE at all, but some other way of extending the range, e.g. by the use of some special battery (aluminium-air, non-rechargable) or even a fuel-cell. In fact, all FCEV contains some batteries and drives using an electric motor, so they should be categorized as an EREV. On the other hand, the category PHEV correctly describes (not just implies) that it is a hybrid and also electric vehicle. So what is wrong with using the technically correct and properly descriptive acronym, PHEV ?
ps:
As Drucifer insists, it is important to differentiate BEV-based hybrids from ICE-based hybrids. So I think the correct terminology would be to call the Volt, i3, Fisker, and ELR a PHEV, while calling the PiP, Ford Fusion etc. a PHICEV (Plugin Hybrid Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle). This would separate the categories and have all the correct descriptive terms for both groups of vehicles.
Drucifer
Active Member
And yet 90% of my miles in a Volt are 100% electric. And I am no miracle worker, just an average guy.
If the higher level classifications of: ICE, EV, and Hybrid already exist, then to take what folks all agree is a hybrid, and name it an "EV" (of whatever sort), is imprecise at best, and misleading at worst.
I'm not a fan of marketing claims/names that don't have underlying technical merit.
Similar threads
