It does. However, the car has just as much electric heat available as a Tesla, and folks who disable that function say the car works and heats just fine without it, so I think the point stands.
-
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
It does. However, the car has just as much electric heat available as a Tesla, and folks who disable that function say the car works and heats just fine without it, so I think the point stands.
flankspeed8
Member
Maybe in CARB states, but not in the rest of the U.S. according to my experience. In fact at times, the Volt has the weakest incentives than the average GM vehicle.
One thing that combustion is rather efficient at is producing heat. A while back I read about a few "EVs" in cold climates coming with Webasto heaters. Is that still considered an EV?
I think so, since it's usually about the drivetrain/powertrain that's being implied.
I am referring to the narrow view of "EV/Hybrid Experience" not the mechanical definition of such. There are 69 pages of the pure definition back and forth that I don't think there is any chance that either side is going to back down. I was jokingly using fish tank as an absurd reference of alternate power source (which I should have used hamster wheel for an better analogy to start with so the permanent nature of power source can be highlighted versus gold fish that can't be imagined to power the EV in anyway) Of course I agree the danger of green washing from Prius plug-in and a whole host of crippled EV mode hybrids to flood the consumer's mind. What I don't understand is the urge in discounting Volt's ability to operate in essence as an non-crippled EV for a couple hours of city driving time and categorizing it as the same as coasting ICEs for at most a minute?
What if next year the i3 REx series engine was changed to use a series/parallel transaxle instead of just using a series generator in order to improve its highway efficiency?
Would it still be an EV with an ICE option added on?
I'm not discounting the Volt's ability. In fact, when people ask me for my opinion when they're shopping for a car and they bring up hybrids, I ask them if they do more city (Volt - as long as you don't need the fifth seat) or highway (Prius). The Volt and Prius are very capable vehicles for what they were designed to do. They ask me about the LEAF, but I lead them away from that if they don't meet the criteria - distance driven, 2nd car access, location (chargers aren't that many outside the city). Most don't have the capital necessary for Tesla, but the ones that do seem to be more interested in Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar or the GTR. Then I tell them that some of those you can't row your own gears, but that'll warrant another thread.
I think what you're sensing is the feeling that hybrids are a step and full battery EVs are the goal. Everyone wants the goal, but without the steps in between it's harder to reach. For many, full battery EVs aren't quite there yet and that's where the Prius and the Volt come in. They're "gateway" vehicles as many have testified in this forum.
I remember reading an article when California gave in to the auto manufacturers where Toyota mentioned that full battery EV isn't quite there yet and that hybrids would be the way to get there. I think in the article they mentioned the battery getting bigger as we get closer to a full battery EV for mobility. That's why they discontinued the RAV4 EV and developed the Prius.
ICE >> Prius-type >> Volt-type >> full BEV (goal!) <--- This is what that article was outlining.
But it didn't happen that way. Prius happened, but Tesla just straight out went to full BEV (stole the ball) and now the whole industry is trying to catch up.
Drucifer
Active Member
Yep. I believe it comes on by default at 35 degrees F, with a user setting to reduce that to 15 degress F. You can hack it so it never comes on.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No since the parallel setup would mean a different mechanical design for the drivetrain. The current i3 has the same drivetrain in each configuration. i.e. an electric motor. Your suggestion puts an ICE into the drivetrain.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sure. Someone can put a wood stove in a Tesla, it's still an EV, and someone can put an electric heater powered by a battery pack in an ICE and it's still an ICE.
So, a vehicle cannot be an EV if it uses certain prohibited gearbox designs?
Why would an owner care how the gearbox of their vehicle is designed if the behavior and drivability of the car is indistinguishable from alternative designs when the gas engine is off? How is it useful to say this one vehicle is an EV and this other one is not? Either way, the car is only being pushed by an electric motor and the battery pack in both the series extender and series/parallel extender cases.
Your definition of "EV" seems rather arbitrary to me.
Or maybe the "EV"ness of the vehicle depends only on how it operates when the engine is running?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It's really not, I think you misinterpreted what I said in my original quote above. An EV is a vehicle powered only by a battery pack, or maybe someday a capacitor bank. The i3 battery only version is an EV. The version with the ICE is a hybrid, a plugin series hybrid to be specific. That version was created by adding a generator to an existing EV. As you quoted me above:
So to be clear, I don't consider the i3 with ICE to be an EV, it's a series hybrid, created by adding an ICE to an EV. In contrast the Volt was designed from the beginning as a plugin hybrid, was never sold in an EV version, and would not have sold well if at all as an EV only version with 40-50 miles of range.
This seems simple:
- Vehicles with a single source of power, have a single architecture: ICE; BEV, HFCV EV, Steam engine, etc...
- Vehicles with multiple sources of power are hybrids: ICE/Battery; HVCV/Battery, etc...
There are variations within each category:
- Some ICE's have manual transmissions, some have autos, some are CVTs, some are diesels, some save fuel by stopping the engine at a stoplight, some have turbos, etc...
- Some hybrids are parallel, some serial, some combo, some plug in, etc...
There are vastly different operating characteristics within the architecture of "ICE": MPG, speed, power, range, etc.... yet nobody denies they are all ICEs.
So also, there vastly different characteristic within the architecture of hybrid: MPG, speed, power, range per mode, etc... yet they are also all hybrids.
- Vehicles with a single source of power, have a single architecture: ICE; BEV, HFCV EV, Steam engine, etc...
- Vehicles with multiple sources of power are hybrids: ICE/Battery; HVCV/Battery, etc...
There are variations within each category:
- Some ICE's have manual transmissions, some have autos, some are CVTs, some are diesels, some save fuel by stopping the engine at a stoplight, some have turbos, etc...
- Some hybrids are parallel, some serial, some combo, some plug in, etc...
There are vastly different operating characteristics within the architecture of "ICE": MPG, speed, power, range, etc.... yet nobody denies they are all ICEs.
So also, there vastly different characteristic within the architecture of hybrid: MPG, speed, power, range per mode, etc... yet they are also all hybrids.
We will have to agree to disagree. The pure mechanical definition of EV is clear and I am not disputing that. This was why I posted my original argument on experience in the Volt thread but got diverted to this thread titled as "BEV dogma." But I digress...
A "human experience" is not perfect, and like it or not we all live in this imperfect world that is not purely defined by engineering terms. What the public or general population's view of the function a particular object is determined for the most part by what the human would need to do with it and not by the machine could do in every conceivable circumstances.
We are all emotional and when pressed we all over-state what we intend to convey. Greater good a lot of times comes from meeting people's where they are with perception instead of insisting the fundamentalist view and inadvertently limit people's chance in migration to electric mobility. Often we think we are conveying clearly what are good definitions abit a little complex, yet general car buying population still come away with ideas blending adaptation of their perception with wrong pieces of info what you were trying to emphasize. Given the current poisonous environment I find it much more beneficial to "dumb it down" into what they need to do in assisting non-technical car buying public deciding their actual buying choices.
I find it borderline disingenuous to cast updated i3 Rex and Volt as the same category as Prius-type of vehicle with an EV bias; when clearly those type of vehicles are capable of providing " EV experience" that are designed to be routinely operate without use of ICE. There are SAE definitions of EV and EREV, PHV; then there are manufactures such as Toyota and GM try to sway and fudge the consensus or perception of consensus to their own financial benefit. Hybrid happens to be defined by Prius (purely parallel hybrid) over the last decade and like it or not it is not likely to change given that the largest automobile company would like to milk that perception for as long as possible.
Fortunately serial hybrid came to the rescue by giving more people the "EV experience" that was otherwise being barred from mental barriers instilled by multiple special interest groups. Unfortunately by the nature of design the serial hybrids also has flaws in efficiency that can be easily exploited by strictly parallel hybrids manufactures from only one fuel type such as HSD to create this mirage of logical transition path to hydrogen fuel-cell. That way they can slow down the adoption of plugs and overall speed of electrification. And that is why I find it objectionable for Pure BEV dogma people to label anyone opposing their view of what an "EV experience" should be with label such as "Volt apologist." I have no problem with Hybrids that offered "EV experience" being called a special kinds of EVs if that helps people getting a taste of what an electrification future could be.
@scaesare Feel free to use ignore feature as we won't see eye to eye on the subject of Volt that is being directed under the banner of EV dogma.
Okay, off my soapbox and I won't post anymore in this thread.
Last edited:
@quartzav
Conflating the specific definition of something with communicating the traits of that object simply dilutes both.
Be precise in definitions. Then be thorough (but honest) in extoling the relative merits of that object.
That way you can "dumb it down" all you want for whatever audience you need, without subverting the correct definitions.
Conflating the specific definition of something with communicating the traits of that object simply dilutes both.
Be precise in definitions. Then be thorough (but honest) in extoling the relative merits of that object.
That way you can "dumb it down" all you want for whatever audience you need, without subverting the correct definitions.
From that long post, all I got was that you don't want to break the mold. Why?
Break the mold the Prius has set! Get more people in Volts! Don't do what GM did which didn't do much for the image of both hybrid and BEV.
Okay, I am lured back to break my promise of not posting in this thread...
My point is that mold can be broken in different ways, as the term "hybrid" is being hijacked by Toyota who won't allow it to be broken from their mold. Dealing with human nature is a lot more complex then dealing with machines as many in engineering mindset. GM has done damages in helping Volt-type of ideas to get more widely adopted, I won't speculate of the motive. BMW in what I perceived in their German stubbornness also doesn't help with their strategies. Tesla broke the mold almost a decade ago and see how slow the public consensus shift? It is still a uphill battle to move meaningful percentage of new car sales into some type of electrification. If it means we need to take it in our own hands and not stroke our elitist-like ego in correcting every inaccurate definition and inadvertently turn-off would-be audiences from what is possible; wouldn't it be more conductive to our goal? Maybe I have a different goal in mind than yours. I am hoping to not let perfect be the enemy of good and get the transition faster. When it is "normal" a hybrid is using both plug and gasoline in general consensus, I would work along side with you in correcting what should be an EV and what should be a Hybrid.
Please bring this back to Volt thread if we should discuss the Volt's EV experience.
The...last...post...
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I'm not sure what you guys are arguing about, but it seems like you all are just nit picking semantics back and forth.
It seems to me, any vehicle with multiple sources of power is a hybrid. Per one definition: "a car with a gasoline engine and an electric motor, each of which can propel it." But that itself is probably a bad definition, because it should not explicitly specify gasoline and electric. Here's where it gets a little trickier. When we talk about what makes a hybrid, are we talking the original source of the power for the vehicle, or the type of the device providing the mechanical power? By common convention, the answer is the type of device. That's why a common "Hybrid" is a hybrid, despite it's only original source of power being gasoline. So, a standard Prius is a hybrid. A Prius Plug-In is a hybrid. A Volt is a hybrid. Even a BMW i3 with range extender is a hybrid.
That said, saying a car is a hybrid is woefully insufficient to understand it's true nature, strengths and weaknesses. So it makes sense to clarify where in the range of hybrids particular models sit, and that's why you start getting other terms that try to break that group down into more categories.
This is very similar in nature to the falcon wing door vs gull wing door arguments that occasionally spring up. I would argue that the X doors are actually both, and that falcon wing is merely a subset of gull wing. People think the falcon wing deserves special recognition and/or classification, and perhaps it does, but it's still a gull wing. Likewise, people think the Volt deserves special recognition and/or classification, and perhaps it does, but it's still a hybrid.
In the end, I think the argument is really just about how fine or coarse you want to categorize all the different types, but from a distance, there's really not that much disagreement. So have a fun debate, but try not to offend or take offense at the viewpoints of others. This one is not worth getting heated over.
It seems to me, any vehicle with multiple sources of power is a hybrid. Per one definition: "a car with a gasoline engine and an electric motor, each of which can propel it." But that itself is probably a bad definition, because it should not explicitly specify gasoline and electric. Here's where it gets a little trickier. When we talk about what makes a hybrid, are we talking the original source of the power for the vehicle, or the type of the device providing the mechanical power? By common convention, the answer is the type of device. That's why a common "Hybrid" is a hybrid, despite it's only original source of power being gasoline. So, a standard Prius is a hybrid. A Prius Plug-In is a hybrid. A Volt is a hybrid. Even a BMW i3 with range extender is a hybrid.
That said, saying a car is a hybrid is woefully insufficient to understand it's true nature, strengths and weaknesses. So it makes sense to clarify where in the range of hybrids particular models sit, and that's why you start getting other terms that try to break that group down into more categories.
This is very similar in nature to the falcon wing door vs gull wing door arguments that occasionally spring up. I would argue that the X doors are actually both, and that falcon wing is merely a subset of gull wing. People think the falcon wing deserves special recognition and/or classification, and perhaps it does, but it's still a gull wing. Likewise, people think the Volt deserves special recognition and/or classification, and perhaps it does, but it's still a hybrid.
In the end, I think the argument is really just about how fine or coarse you want to categorize all the different types, but from a distance, there's really not that much disagreement. So have a fun debate, but try not to offend or take offense at the viewpoints of others. This one is not worth getting heated over.
I don't disagree. Further sub-categories are indeed useful. For instance, a series-type hybrid vs. a parallel-type hybrid. Or a hybrid that operates as a series/parallel depending on conditions. BEV vs HFCV. That all conveys useful information.
The issue, however, is when there's an attempt to miscategorize something for what appears to be marketing reasons.
For instance, it seems that GM really wanted to distance itself from existing hybrid cars, and thus decided to call something an Extended Range Electric Vehicle, when it clearly fits the series/parallel hybrid category... and what's more operates in series/parallel mode for the vast majority of it's specified operating range, appears disingenuous.
Couple that with the attempts to mischaracterize the actual operation of the drivetrain, and you no longer have the manufacturer attempting to further subcategorize their vehicle to make a useful distinction, but rather obscuring the actual architecture of the platform.
That's attempting classify something which it really is not.
Why should the majority of the theoretical unrefueled range be more important than the majority of typical usage? This forum is always full of the "new EV paradigm" and "full tank every morning" - why penalize a vehicle for having a larger gas tank that it very seldom uses?
Similar threads
