Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Transport Evolved

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by TEG viewpost-right.png
I still like the idea of the % number for % of miles projected to be from electricity as compared to from an alternative power source.
So anything that doesn't plug in is a 0% EV (all the miles came from on-board gas either directly or indirectly), and all the non-range extended electric vehicles (including NEVs) would get 100%.
But then the all-electric-range number would also be taken into consideration.
So a Roadster would be like 100%, 220AER,
A Volt maybe 60%, 40AER,
Leaf 100%, 100AER,
Plug-in Prius maybe 30%, 20AER?

Personally, I don't mind that a NEV could get 100%. It wouldn't take long for someone to notice the range and top speed to differentiate it.
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by doug viewpost-right.png
I suppose you could combine the two:

Volt: 95%PHEV35
Prius: 60%PHEV15
Karma: 75%PHEV50
Tesla Roadster: 100%EV245
NEV: 100%EV20




Oops. Great minds...

In mine, the percentage refers to how much that supposed "all electric range" is actually electric.
I still wonder if that much distinction is necessary, or helpful to the already confused general public. Yes a Volt PHEV40, or 35, is a different PHEV than a Prius15, beyond the potential electric only miles, but is that difference large enough that the details need to be forced into a general designation? I think the real differences will be quickly described when visiting a dealer. Does anyone think a buyer will be surprised when the gas motor in the Prius comes on at a certain speed? I suppose it could happen if the dealer were less than forthcoming.
 
Well that has certainly been the case here and on other threads on this site. If anyone dared to state the benefits of PHEVs in general or the Volt in particular, they were soundly accused of going over to dark side and of course the Kool-aid pitcher was brought out for display of their obvious situation.

Be prepared for more of that as Model S comes closer, and the competition with GM and also Fisker more obvious.
 
Again, I don't have a real problem with anyone buying a PHEV, just don't pretend that it's an EV. It only adds to the confusion.
For myself, if it can work as an EV on a daily basis, highway speed, heating, cooling etc. without using an ICE it warrants an identifier to distinguish it from a weak PHEV such as the Plug in Prius.
 
I still wonder if that much distinction is necessary, or helpful to the already confused general public. Yes a Volt PHEV40, or 35, is a different PHEV than a Prius15, beyond the potential electric only miles, but is that difference large enough that the details need to be forced into a general designation? I think the real differences will be quickly described when visiting a dealer. Does anyone think a buyer will be surprised when the gas motor in the Prius comes on at a certain speed? I suppose it could happen if the dealer were less than forthcoming.

I think there are a lot of non-technical car buyers out there intrigued by the idea of trying an "electrified vehicle" but clueless to the nuances of the technical differences between series hybrids, parallel hybrids, plug in hybrids and full/pure/100% all-electric BEV ZEVs. Giving them a "boiled down" number to simplify could be beneficial. Asking them to visit the dealer to learn "the real story" seems problematic as the salespeople could paint an inaccurate picture that better suits the product they are offering.

---
With a "% electrified " number you can have a more cross-product discussion like:

(Talking to a random newbie potential plug-in car buyer)

"OK, you are interested in buying a vehicle that you plug in?"
..."yes"
"OK, do you want a 100% BEV that doesn't have a tailpipe, never burns any gas, is zero emissions, but has a somewhat limited range, and isn't the best choice for long trips right now?"
..."maybe, but what are the alternatives?"
"Well you could try a 80% BEV that you will likely use in electric mode for most of your driving, but it does have a gasoline range extender if you need to drive further than usual."
..."what are the downsides?"
"Well, for one it costs somewhat more than a 'conventional' vehicle with the same features. Also it will burn gasoline sometimes."
..."OK, I am on a budget and cannot afford that, so am I out of luck?"
"No, you could try a more 'entry level' 40% BEV that has a smaller battery, and less powerful electric motor, so you end up using more gas and less electricity."
..."Hmm... OK - I will think about that and see if I can justify the added expense of a more fully electrified vehicle, or maybe even consider if the driving range of the 100% offerings within my budget are sufficient for my driving needs."
 
Last edited:
Another good thing about the simplified % electrified number could be that it could directly factor on incentives.

Assuming the numbers are well calculated and established there could be things like:
$10,000 credit/rebate/discount for 100% EV
$7,500 credit/rebate/discount for 75% EV
$5,000 credit/rebate/discount for 50% EV
$2,500 credit/rebate/discount for 25% EV
etc.
 
Well ok then. It just seems to me that the whole superiority, purity attitude thing does more to drive interested lookers away then it does to encourage them to take whichever step is best for them.

Yes, I think that is a core concept to this whole discussion, and part of the reason I took a slight sip from the "gas-aide" and backed off a bunch.
I think Chelsea used the term "corruptible little minions somewhere..."
 
+1
IMHO, they ought to have gone "full 100% BEV" first if they were trying to say that they made a mistake by ending the EV1, and they are ready to return.
As it is, the message (even without the somewhat heavy handed added marketing fluff) comes across as "100% BEVs aren't what people need, they still need a gas engine."
There is a good place in the market for vehicles like the Volt / Ampera, but I don't think they are worthy of being the "halo" models that the 100% BEV ZEVs represent.

Agreed, but I’ve never gotten the impression that the Volt was meant to admit a mistake on EV1. A few individuals have publicly admitted that it was a mistake, but there’s never been a broad corporate acknowledgment. But neither have I heard any of the other five companies acknowledge theirs.

I do think there was an element of “damage control” around the movie, and the negative public perception around EV1, but the fact that Lutz’s initial desire to do an EV was changed to a PHEV only underscores that they didn’t think there was a significant market for an EV. And they’ve said as much. They assumed that in the market most receptive to the volumes of vehicles they wanted to build, that a gas engine was required. It’s the same market gamble that Toyota has made.

I agree that none of the PHEVs are the halo cars that the EVs are. Just meant that within each category there are some that are better than others. The Roadster is obviously the halo car in the EV class, at least for now. Within the PHEV class, the Volt is the best example (of those announced). And if it launched with a Toyota logo on it, I don’t think folks would resent it nearly so much, regardless of the marketing. The marketing would be bad no matter what, but the Volt was already starting from behind because of the badge.


Perhaps let's clarify what you mean by "purist" (and "purism"), you have been using the term(s) quite a bit, and appear to consider it (or them) useful as a category.

Ok, I’ll take a stab at it. I observe it more as an attitude than a difference in actual judgement between the vehicles. We generally agree that the EV is the ideal, I think. And that while some of us believe PHEVs are more useful than others, the best PHEV is certainly not as good as an EV in terms of efficiency and impact. But some people use words that frame it as “PHEVs are good, EVs are best”, while others use words that frame it more as “EVs are the only good, everything else is significantly less”. Both express a difference in value, but the second version sounds more judgmental. And there are different degrees, of course- those on the more extreme end of the second group assert that PHEVs are the enemy of EVs. To me, that is a purist attitude. And I’m happy to use a different word if purist is bothersome; I was simply trying to distinguish among the broader group of EV enthusiasts.

If the goal is to get people who are currently considering PHEVs to consider EVs, we have to keep them wanting to have the conversation so they can learn about the EVs. In my experience, the more positive framing is more effective and inviting for that. The others are more discouraging, and in some cases outright off-putting, depending on how the messenger delivers it. And I am concerned that some of those who can’t be coached into an EV also intone from the negative messaging that PHEVs aren’t good enough to bother with either. I've already come across some that have gotten that impression

(Just for clarity: that sentence was part of Bud's quote.)

You’re right, I went back and looked. I’m sorry I missed it the first time.
 
Yes, I think that is a core concept to this whole discussion, and part of the reason I took a slight sip from the "gas-aide" and backed off a bunch.
I think Chelsea used the term "corruptible little minions somewhere..."

Agreed, but to be clear, I made the reference in a whole different context on a different forum. It was a reference to the fact that GM has insisted that I am the only one who doesn't like the current version of AB475, and that I am intentionally and maliciously using bad information to rile everyone up for my own purposes (what those would be, I don't know.) Further, anyone else who has voiced concerns (including PIA) has only done so because I put them up to it. So when someone copied his note to the Gov asking for a veto, I teased him about being a "corruptible little minion" :)
 
Sad part is that a car like that comes from asking consumers what they want.

That is one of the biggest errors that companies make all the time: making decisions based on customer focus groups.

Maybe focus groups are okay for comparing the taste of different soda products, but people can't imagine what it's like to use a product or service they've never seen. They come to utterly incorrect conclusions for the wrong reasons. They'll tell you, "sure, I'll buy that", then you bet your company on it, then they don't buy it. Or vice versa. For things like this you need to make your own informed decisions.

An acquaintance of mine founded a company that makes optical design software. The software was originally in DOS. When Windows became popular, he surveyed his customers and asked if they would like a Windows version. He was surprised to discover that 97% said "no". They were happy with the product and the way it worked. Fortunately he threw out the survey and did it anyway. His sales TRIPLED overnight.

You do need to listen to your customers, especially about the little things. But never make a major decision based on uninformed consumers' opinions!
 
Last edited:
Another good thing about the simplified % electrified number could be that it could directly factor on incentives.

Assuming the numbers are well calculated and established there could be things like:
$10,000 credit/rebate/discount for 100% EV
$7,500 credit/rebate/discount for 75% EV
$5,000 credit/rebate/discount for 50% EV
$2,500 credit/rebate/discount for 25% EV
etc.

Not sure if you already know, but Tesla has actually proposed basing the incentives on battery size (I think in kWh). They actually already are based on that, but have a ceiling so low that currently most cars get the same $7,500. So Tesla proposed lifting that ceiling much higher (or removing it altogether perhaps), as that would better address the purpose of the incentive.
 
I noticed their charge port is designed differently (compared to the Volt).
The European connector standard is different than ours. I don’t know of anything different in the drivetrain configuration between Volt and Ampera.
Look more carefully at the video markwj posted (above post #424): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9A1mgO_rY

At 1:23 the chargeport is demonstrated; completely different from Volt here in US.
attachment.php?attachmentid=2434&d=1314303163.png


Actually, if you look at it, it's just a J1772 inlet. This is a pre-production vehicle. The production version has a more normal, larger opening to accommodate what has become the standard (somewhat large) housing for the connector.

attachment.php?attachmentid=2435&d=1314303230.jpg


old Ampera charge connector.PNG
284214_261593460518063_133455769998500_1121642_2431951_n.jpg
 
Look more carefully at the video markwj posted (above post #424): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9A1mgO_rY

At 1:23 the chargeport is demonstrated; completely different from Volt here in US.

In terms of drivetrain differences (Mountain Mode, etc): there could be firmware differences (or additions) that change how the wheels are driven, but it's less than likely. But Nik has a good point: :rolleyes:

I saw that, but it looks to me to be a variation of how the charge port was integrated into the trim piece on the Volt concept. I agree that the port is accessed differently, but other than the different connector, I don’t know that it’s functionally any different. The Euro connector is smaller than ours, so there may have been more design options?

The only difference I know of that was considered was the idea of letting the driver reserve EV mode for congestion charge purposes. I don’t know what was decided there, though Mountain Mode can already be used in that way, so it’s possible they’d build off of that. I’m not aware of anything that changes how the wheels are driven w/r/t the Voltgate scenario.


I still wonder if that much distinction is necessary, or helpful to the already confused general public. Yes a Volt PHEV40, or 35, is a different PHEV than a Prius15, beyond the potential electric only miles, but is that difference large enough that the details need to be forced into a general designation? I think the real differences will be quickly described when visiting a dealer.

Sorry, I have worked with too many dealers to have that much faith; they’re there to sell, and some do it in ways that make Chevy's marketing look like nothing. And I’ve had several Toyota dealers try to explain to me that a non-pluggable Prius is really an electric car. Especially since I’m just a girl, and I couldn’t understand such technical differences. :) Then again, I've had an EV manufacturer tell me his car was so much better than a Tesla, not least because I could push a button on the fob to start charging and wouldn't have to get my hands dirty on the connector. Salesman of all stripes.

Much of the automotive media doesn’t understand the differences either, and consumers get info from them. I sat through a Ford media briefing a couple months ago on the C-Max Energi PHEV; it is advertised as having 30 miles of EV range, but the gas engine comes on at 47mph, max. Most of the journos made comments about how that was almost as much as a Volt.

I don’t think we need to work all of the details into a complex scheme, but it would be helpful to have a simple way to categorize those PHEVs that let the consumer decide when to use gas, and those that don’t.

Not sure if you already know, but Tesla has actually proposed basing the incentives on battery size (I think in kWh). They actually already are based on that, but have a ceiling so low that currently most cars get the same $7,500. So Tesla proposed lifting that ceiling much higher (or removing it altogether perhaps), as that would better address the purpose of the incentive.

It is kWh; the push for this started many years ago, specifically because some of the other models (like mileage) were “gameable”, and they favored small vehicles and blended PHEVs. This model gives automakers more flexibility to use those kWh in a way they think will best sell.

And raising the ceiling would be good- but at a minimum, the floor should be.

Well that has certainly been the case here and on other threads on this site. If anyone dared to state the benefits of PHEVs in general or the Volt in particular, they were soundly accused of going over to dark side and of course the Kool-aid pitcher was brought out for display of their obvious situation.

Gee, I never have that experience. :)

I have come to the conclusion that at least for those living in CA, we just have to let them believe that every state will be like theirs and magically have all kinds of charging opportunities by next year.

Well, some Californians can’t imagine a state not like ours in any way. But some of us are more realistic. Even here, much more infrastructure is assumed to be needed than actually is. So even a sprinkling of it will be more effective than you might think, but options for those who can't or won't buy an EV is important.

I wish you the best in your endeavors in spreading the EV word in a much greater way and we will continue to show our various EVs both "pure" and not so pure at events here in PA.

Thanks, and likewise! I get out there periodically and present at a training session for HS teachers each summer; perhaps we’ll cross paths...
 
....
An acquaintance of mine founded a company... His sales TRIPLED overnight.
.

That's a great story. On a similar note, nerds are consumers too. Packaging an eltrogremick in a professionally designed box or bag sells more than a purely functional plain container.

Extremists, whether they are EV haters or purists leave the car's "package" out of the equation and only talk about drivetrains and fueling being a reason to buy or shun a car. Most cars are sold irrespective of what's under the hood.
Style sells, and wrapping a car's image in a story that a buyer wants to identify with often has nothing to do with what it's powered by.
 
Last edited:
attachment.php?attachmentid=2434&d=1314303163.png


Actually, if you look at it, it's just a J1772 inlet. This is a pre-production vehicle. The production version has a more normal, larger opening to accommodate what has become the standard (somewhat large) housing for the connector.

Are you sure? Maybe it has the right pins and signaling, but the inlet looks too small and looks like it has a squared off top.
Is this supposed to be a J1772 plug? :
FutureModels_Ampera_Everydayuse_cnt_imgpar_1_Charging_310x230_1100_260238.jpg
 
...I’ve never gotten the impression that the Volt was meant to admit a mistake on EV1. A few individuals have publicly admitted that it was a mistake, but there’s never been a broad corporate acknowledgment. But neither have I heard any of the other five companies acknowledge theirs.

I do think there was an element of “damage control” around the movie, and the negative public perception around EV1, but the fact that Lutz’s initial desire to do an EV was changed to a PHEV only underscores that they didn’t think there was a significant market for an EV. And they’ve said as much. They assumed that in the market most receptive to the volumes of vehicles they wanted to build, that a gas engine was required. It’s the same market gamble that Toyota has made.

I agree that none of the PHEVs are the halo cars that the EVs are. Just meant that within each category there are some that are better than others. The Roadster is obviously the halo car in the EV class, at least for now. Within the PHEV class, the Volt is the best example (of those announced). And if it launched with a Toyota logo on it, I don’t think folks would resent it nearly so much, regardless of the marketing. The marketing would be bad no matter what, but the Volt was already starting from behind because of the badge.

Well, you are central to the "story" so are in a position to know more than almost anyone, but also so involved that it may be a bit harder for you to know how others view what has transpired. To me, WKtEC was a story of how GM made a mistake, and RotEC is a story of attempted redemption. Perhaps if the EV1 wasn't a purpose built vehicle, with such a loyal following, it wouldn't have drawn so much more ire to GM as compared to the other manufacturers that you keep reminding us about. Also, it seems GM did a more thorough job of "erasing" the EV1 which makes people point it out, unlike the Rav4EV and RangerEV (for instance) which still have examples running here and there. The whole story could have been different if, for instance, Toyota started first, got rid of ALL of the Rav4EVs, and the protesters stopped many EV1s from going to the crusher. GM gets the lions share of the scorn for being first, and more thorough to "erase" their EV, and more-so because it was the most unique of the group.

Maybe the general press was more responsible for giving the impression that the Volt was EV1 reborn than GM itself, but it still came across that way to me.
Heck, look what I see on the pluginamerica site:
http://images.pluginamerica.org/NationalPost-8jan08.pdf
...The electric car reborn
GM took tons of heat for killing its first electric car, the EV1. Now it’s back with the Volt...

...For the first time since 2002, when GM scrapped its Saturn EV1 electric-car project - an admitted strategic blunder that disappointed legions of fans and led to the company's vilification in Chris Paine's 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? - North America's largest automaker will be reporting real progress on the development of a battery-powered vehicle for ordinary drivers: the Chevy Volt...

...vowed would become the world's first mass-produced electric car. A direct descendent of the EV1...
 
Last edited: