Pure BEV Dogma

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

So it is a form of a hybrid. That's all some are trying to say.

Some are trying to say more than that. Some are trying to say that "EV" should be reserved for BEVs and that you _have_ to call the Volt a PHEV because it is a PHEV.

To me there's a distinction to be made between:
- SAE definition
- term used for marketing/general purpose.

It's not reasonable, as GM suggested, to have an SAE sub-classification with vague definitions like "Acts like a BEV". It could been strictly defined based on measurables (even if varying over time) like maximum/recommended legal speed limits, driving patterns, comparable vehicle power all electric and hybrid, and supported temperatures ranges.

But, for a variety of reasons, for general use I do think it's reasonable to make a distinction between "You'll only have to burn gasoline if you use up the battery (except for self-maintenance)" and "You'll burn gasoline any time you (a) go above x mph (b) press the accelerator hard (c) want more than limited acceleration (d) run the heat".

 

[Drucifer]

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.

YES! PHEV and PHICEV totally work in my view of the world

ICE - PHICEV - PHEV - BEV

across a spectrum of default/primary modes and secondary/alternate modes.

 

[mknox]

well, here's my company's Volt all badged up...

 

[scaesare]

And yet 90% of my miles in a Volt are 100% electric. And I am no miracle worker, just an average guy.

Yest the person with 100 mile per day driving needs will use more gas miles than electric. Is the car classification going to change for each individual driver? No.

The architecture defines the classification. The use case for each individual makes the enginnering tradeoffs for a given platform more or less appealing.

 

[dsm363]

Some are trying to say more than that. Some are trying to say that "EV" should be reserved for BEVs and that you _have_ to call the Volt a PHEV because it is a PHEV.

To me there's a distinction to be made between:
- SAE definition
- term used for marketing/general purpose.

It's not reasonable, as GM suggested, to have an SAE sub-classification with vague definitions like "Acts like a BEV". It could been strictly defined based on measurables (even if varying over time) like maximum/recommended legal speed limits, driving patterns, comparable vehicle power all electric and hybrid, and supported temperatures ranges.

But, for a variety of reasons, for general use I do think it's reasonable to make a distinction between "You'll only have to burn gasoline if you use up the battery (except for self-maintenance)" and "You'll burn gasoline any time you (a) go above x mph (b) press the accelerator hard (c) want more than limited acceleration (d) run the heat".

You should have to call the Volt a hybrid vehicle because that's what it is. It has two potential power sources does it not?

 

[mknox]

You should have to call the Volt a hybrid vehicle because that's what it is. It has two potential power sources does it not?

I had a guy insist my Model S was a "hybrid" because it has a battery and has regenerative brakes (2 sources of power). The discussion actually got heated until I walked away. Seriously.

 

[dsm363]

The Model S could be an extended range EV as well. It's an EV you can drive for an extended range or more than 200 miles.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

You should have to call the Volt a hybrid vehicle because that's what it is. It has two potential power sources does it not?

You should have to call the Model S a wheeled vehicle, because that's what it is. It's a vehicle with wheels is it not?

Oh wait, the above statement is ridiculous, because the fact that it is (a) electric (b) a sedan (c) large is pertinent information so calling it a large electric sedan is OK.

Sub-classifications are useful. I call the Volt a full-performance plug-in hybrid, myself, but that's because I live in Maine and it gets cold here a lot. But if I were in Phoenix, AZ and heard someone tell a friend "It's an EREV", I wouldn't be arguing.

BTW, BMW's page has i3 and i3 with Range Extender.

 

[dsm363]

You should have to call the Model S a wheeled vehicle, because that's what it is. It's a vehicle with wheels is it not?

Oh wait, the above statement is ridiculous, because the fact that it is (a) electric (b) a sedan (c) large is pertinent information so calling it a large electric sedan is OK.

Sub-classifications are useful. I call the Volt a full-performance plug-in hybrid, myself, but that's because I live in Maine and it gets cold here a lot. But if I were in Phoenix, AZ and heard someone tell a friend "It's an EREV", I wouldn't be arguing.

BTW, BMW's page has i3 and i3 with Range Extender.

The Model S like the Volt is a wheeled vehicle. I don't get your argument. Calling it a large electric sedan is fine. So is a full performance Plug in hybrid because it is a hybrid.

 

[Jeff N]

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.

I see no reason to categorize a two-level battery pack as anything other than a BEV. I think a fuel cell range extender would fit well within an EREV acronym without confusing typical consumers.

I suppose you could come up with a Fuel-based Extended Range Electric Vehicle or FEREV but I don't think that's desirable.

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 ?

By any reasonable definition, in my opinion, an FCEV would not be an EREV unless it had an externally rechargeable battery. Certainly GM's definition requires that.

The idea of trying to force EREV to be synonymous with PHEV is a non sequitur. EREV, by definition, is trying to describe two sequential modes of operation that begin with EV driving that first consumes any usable energy from a rechargeable battery. It makes no sense to take an acronym that describes two different modes and then arbitrarily shove it hierarchically under one of those modes.

 

[dsm363]

By any reasonable definition, in my opinion, an FCEV would not be an EREV unless it had an externally rechargeable battery. Certainly GM's definition requires that.

The idea of trying to force EREV to be synonymous with PHEV is a non sequitur. EREV, by definition, is trying to describe two sequential modes of operation that begin with EV driving that first consumes any usable energy from a rechargeable battery. It makes no sense to take an acronym that describes two different modes and then arbitrarily shove it hierarchically under one of those modes.

Which is exactly what PHEV-40 would imply. Has a plug, is a hybrid, 40 miles of EV range prior to hybrid mode.

 

[Takumi]

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.

That's the problem I see. The Volt is not an EV, it is a hybrid. Why say the EV part? Why isn't the ICE part included? Why isn't it PHEVICE?

Culturally:

Muscle cars popular = V8 is the marketing term to use
Prius popular = HYBRID is the marketing term to use
Tesla popular = EV is the marketing term to use (Why do you think GM didn't use hybrid?)

Why doesn't GM grow and expand hybrid instead of trying to tack EV onto the car? Hybrids have their use as a bridge technology as most manufacturers have stated in the past. As others have stated, hybrids are more complex than EVs so why not state that fact and showcase their engineering prowess?

I'll ask again. Why doesn't GM use hybrid?

The reluctance to use the term hybrid mirrors GM's behavior and causes instances such as the one scaesare's friend experienced.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Which is exactly what PHEV-40 would imply. Has a plug, is a hybrid, 40 miles of EV range prior to hybrid mode.

No it doesn't. It implies that it has a battery and 40 miles of rated range. It says _nothing_ about electric performance limitations. EREV is about differentiating between cars that have limitations in electric mode and those that don't and that difference is a _big_ deal if you care anything about: gasoline consumption, pollution, energy efficiency, driving experience, maintenance frequency.

I really don't give a crap whether the term used to differentiate has an H in it or not, and GM's reason for removing the H was for marketing, but people insisting that there's no need to differentiate are just primates.

 

[Jeff N]

Which is exactly what PHEV-40 would imply. Has a plug, is a hybrid, 40 miles of EV range prior to hybrid mode.

But which utterly fails to capture the sequential two mode characteristic identified by the EREV name.

 

[Takumi]

Which is exactly what PHEV-40 would imply. Has a plug, is a hybrid, 40 miles of EV range prior to hybrid mode.

Where's the ICE part? to describe the EV part it would have to be PH-EV40. Why not PH-ICE300? 300 is a much bigger number and we know bigger numbers must mean it's better.

 

[Breezy]

The architecture defines the classification.

Right. The Volt is a PHEV, but it doesn't stop there. It has an inherently different design that gives it capabilities that vehicles like the PiP don't have. The Prius is not physically capable of operating the way a Volt does.

Do cars like the Volt need their own SAE classification? Probably not, but there's still nothing wrong with calling them EREVs, REEVs or EVERs, since that describes what they are, not just how they're used.

 

[dsm363]

No it doesn't. It implies that it has a battery and 40 miles of rated range. It says _nothing_ about electric performance limitations. EREV is about differentiating between cars that have limitations in electric mode and those that don't and that difference is a _big_ deal if you care anything about: gasoline consumption, pollution, energy efficiency, driving experience.

EREV says nothing about the performance either. It requires further explanation. The definition of PHEV-X would require the X to refer to full highway performance EV rate range. ER could just meant an EV that drives really far.

 

[dsm363]

But which utterly fails to capture the sequential two mode characteristic identified by the EREV name.

How does Extended Range capture this? ICE-EREV might.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

How does Extended Range capture this? ICE-EREV might.

How does HEV capture the ICE?
How does PHEV capture the ICE?
They don't say it. Nor does EREV.
It could be called a KWIJIBO for all I care. As long as it's something that summarizes a set of characteristics that provides quick differentiation, the name has done its job.

 

[dsm363]

How does HEV capture the ICE?
How does PHEV capture the ICE?
They don't say it. Nor does EREV.
It could be called a KWIJIBO for all I care. As long as it's something that summarizes a set of characteristics that provides quick differentiation, the name has done its job.

Which EREV doesn't either. Says nothing about full performance and for what distance. A PHEV-40 would be very different in gas usage from a PHEV-200. Someone could see very quickly the car requires gas and know about the ICE.

PHEV captures the second power source (ICE) by word Hybrid. How does EREV even imply that? Extended range could mean a second battery.