Transport Evolved

[TEG]

...every automaker that makes fuel cells started co-opting the “EV” moniker long before the Volt came about. As Ford is demonstrating now, the OEMs are trying to morph “electric vehicle” into “electrified vehicle”- an effort that was started by Honda and Toyota with the gas hybrids in the late 1990’s. Not saying it’s right, but it’s not a GM-specific move...

I think you know how we feel about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles around these parts.

My recollection is that Honda & Toyota did NOT really push gas hybrids as EVs. I recall them marketing them for what they are. The "hey you don't even have to plug it in" was a realistic push to distance themselves from their earlier EV efforts.

To me, the Volt was the first ICE equipped vehicle that had marketing seriously "intruding" into the EV space. Prior to Tesla, that space wasn't generally considered "sexy", but once perception changed, a vehicle was produced to jump on the stage alongside the Roadster. Tesla said all along that their "end goal" was a mass produced vehicle, and the Volt showed up like "see we already jumped to the finish line." But it wasn't the finish line, it was something else.

Again, I am glad to see PHEV options, just annoyed that the marketing was jumbled and it was used as a tool to confuse Tesla's message.
To me, GM started in the "penalty box", and they made enough mis-steps that I don't think they really got out.
I do hope they do a full BEV soon, and using A123 cells might be a win.

It will be interesting to see just how Toyota markets the plug-in-Prius once it starts delivering them in volume.

[Norbert]

As Ford is demonstrating now, the OEMs are trying to morph “electric vehicle” into “electrified vehicle”- an effort that was started by Honda and Toyota with the gas hybrids in the late 1990’s. Not saying it’s right, but it’s not a GM-specific move.

I didn't even like the term "Electrification". Are you sure that's just marketing?

[mpt]

I’m enjoying this thread a great deal; so here’s my $0.02


Nomenclature:
As the PHEV/EREV term is becoming blurred, rather than pigeon-hole them into a neat category and hope that their marketing teams can/will follow, perhaps it’s time for us to sharpen the definition at our end of the spectrum - ‘Pure-EV’ seems like a clear term and should perhaps be how we describe our leaves, tesla et. al. however, I think that we must continue to maintain a friendly relationship with the plug-in crowd; I do believe that the Volt is an electric car (see limitations below) and I’m very happy to include them in any EV meet up; why? Simple, they’re not mainstream; they’ve departed from the current ship-of-fools in the right direction. Ok, so they’re taking the long way, fine, they’ll be with us soon enough. Would you criticize me for having a solar hot water heating system when I could use that roof space for a full photovoltaic solution? I hope not but, guess what? I’m now considering that the time is right for me and that big investment is worthy; it doesn’t make immediate short term financial sense but, just as the same may be true for a potential Pure-EV owner, it’s on my short list and the return on the simple, cheap hot water system got me started; I’ll be with you solar PV people soon enough.


Brace yourselves for the consequences of getting what we asked for:
I think we’re going to need to be strong very soon as I fully expect that the Fisker Karma is going to be a huge embarrassment for the ev community - for everyone trying to kick gasoline. I hope I’m completely wrong but, we advocate Pure EVs and we typically shun anything that isn’t pure (I’ll raise my hand for that too). As a result, Chevy created the Volt and Fisker created the Karma. Rather than solving the technical problem of marrying a battery with an ICE they tried to make a car that was more EV than ICE - they used the ICE to make electricity for the battery and motor; result - the Volt does 35mpg, which, let’s face it, is poor. The Volt was bashed viciously for secretly driving the front wheels at speed and the Prius is criticized for being a parallel hybrid despite that making the most technical sense. Let’s face it, an ICE is inefficient at best and using an engine to create rotation, then electricity, then store it to make motion later is nuts! The Karma with its generator only set up and puny battery is going to be horrible - the worst of both worlds - An EV that doesn’t go far or perform well without the help of an engine that’s noisy and has an inefficient transmission.


I know the above does indeed build the case to distance ourselves from the ‘Hybrid’ crowd but, I still suspect that the Volt will sell far more pure-EVs than the combined efforts of us lot and that we, the ‘EV’ community are about running on volts rather than gasoline regardless of the manifestation of the tools that we use. It’s clear from previous comments that, regardless of how we describe ourselves, the general public still views a non-gasoline powered car as a ‘Hybrid’ - even if it’s a Tesla. We can rail against it or try to use its momentum.


Don’t bash each other, bash ‘The Man’:
Following the Leaf ad. that shows the Volt at the pumps, my prediction is that Chevy is already shooting an ad. with a Leaf that’s run out of juice on a road-trip. Loose-loose. Our objective is to get off gasoline regardless of how.

[vfx]

Always loathed, "You don't have to plug it in."

What other products make it so I don't "have" to do things that are more convenient that I like?

Protein pills "You don't even have to eat."
Photographs "You don't even have to travel."
Candles "You don't even have to flick a switch"

[JRP3]

‘Pure-EV’ seems like a clear term and should perhaps be how we describe our leaves, tesla et. al.

Then people complain that we are "elitist" or "EV Purists" Why do we need to create a special term for our vehicles when EV clearly says it all, or at least it should be clear. I say we need to take back that term, not water it down further.

however, I think that we must continue to maintain a friendly relationship with the plug-in crowd;

Of course, we are part of the plug in crowd after all.

I do believe that the Volt is an electric car

WRONG! Sorry but you keep pushing this concept and you are therefore part of the problem, the same as GM marketing, adding to the confusion. The Volt is a HYBRID, plug in hybrid to be exact, which is a fine and workable technology, but still does not make it an EV, never will.

Would you criticize me for having a solar hot water heating system when I could use that roof space for a full photovoltaic solution?

Only if you tried to convince people it was the same thing as a photovoltaic system, only better.

Brace yourselves for the consequences of getting what we asked for:
I think we’re going to need to be strong very soon as I fully expect that the Fisker Karma is going to be a huge embarrassment for the ev community - for everyone trying to kick gasoline.

So we should keep blurring the line between EV and PHEV by including the Volta and Karma as EV's? I don't follow the logic of tying EV's to a product that you feel will be an embarrassment.

[mpt]

Why do we need to create a special term for our vehicles when EV clearly says it all, or at least it should be clear.

'cause I don't think it's working, not when people keep asking me where the engine is. 'Pure-EV' can't be applied to any form of hybrid no matter how hard the marketing teams might like to. I'll grant you that it does come over a little elitist, I can't think of a way of saying all-electric-and-electric-only without sounding elitist.

The Volt is a HYBRID, plug in hybrid to be exact, which is a fine and workable technology, but still does not make it an EV, never will.

This isn't a debate about the technology it's about perception. On the scale there are two points of sharp focus; on one end ICE, on the other pure EVs. The blur starts at start-stop technology and ends at a BMW I3 with a 250cc range extended in the back. The volt is obviously a hybrid, it's a plug in hybrid, but it's also an EV until the battery goes flat; it's propelled by an electric motor at full power, it's an electric vehicle just like my Tesla however, it has the advantage of a range extending gasoline engine. The term 'EV' in the cars description takes it out of the normal ICE vehicle into the world of more educated vehicle purchase choice; a move away from gasoline dependancy. Like my solar installation, it's a hybrid but I'm not going to waste time detailing the fact that I have an electric water heater as a back-up and that almost all solar PV folk have a grid tie-in. It's un-needed additional information that detracts from the core message; we're moving away from the old way.

For most of the new owners it will have been bought for them to run as much as possible on electricity. I'm sure that every Volt owner would prefer their car went further on battery and whilst I appreciate the you & I can see what's under the bonnet I think it gets pretty much full status as an EV for me; if I hear someone say "I have an electric car, I have a Volt." I'll agree with them and we'll talk about how many pure EV miles they're getting.

Is a BMW I3 an EV? Is it still an EV if you opt for the 250cc range extender option? When is it an EV with a range extender? If I could drop a small range extender into the back of, or tow behind my Tesla or MINI I'd still view it as an EV.

I don't follow the logic of tying EV's to a product that you feel will be an embarrassment.

I'm painting a dark worst-case scenario but I don't think we'll get to make that choice. We're going to be faced with article after article talking about how the Karma is more polluting than the equivalent Jag/Aston* and how EVs, to quote Clarkson "Just don't work." The articles will miss the point about the smooth power delivery and that most owners will keep them hitched to a charging cable, how they'll accept that the car is an EV first and a hybrid second which brings me back to the beginning; a car is an EV when it's bought for, and its intended use is primarily as an EV and the ICE doesn't get a look in until absolutely needed.

* When charged from the power station that runs on the heat of burn't e-waste in China!

[Norbert]

Nomenclature:

Was your post intended to be of a diplomatic nature? It seems to be going backwards. It seemed everyone agreed that EVs are EVs.

'cause I don't think it's working, not when people keep asking me where the engine is. 'Pure-EV' can't be applied to any form of hybrid no matter how hard the marketing teams might like to. I'll grant you that it does come over a little elitist, I can't think of a way of saying all-electric-and-electric-only without sounding elitist.

The accusation of purism is not only immanent, it has been spelled out multiple times. Having to explain that an EV doesn't have an engine is not a problem, it is an opportunity. "Electric-only" seems fine as a secondary explanation. EOV if you want, but EV is a halo created and deserved by EVs as their selling point.

It is not like PHEVs are a dying species and need our protection, or our help in marketing. They have powerful corporations behind them and are trying to impress us with projected sales numbers (even though the number of delivered Leafs is larger).

This isn't a debate about the technology it's about perception.

Really?

On the scale there are two points of sharp focus; on one end ICE, on the other pure EVs.

EVs are not one of two extremes in a spectrum, they are the current majority of vehicles delivered, they are the beginning, and they will be the end of this development.

The blur starts at start-stop technology and ends at a BMW I3 with a 250cc range extended in the back. The volt is obviously a hybrid, it's a plug in hybrid, but it's also an EV until the battery goes flat; it's propelled by an electric motor at full power, it's an electric vehicle just like my Tesla however, it has the advantage of a range extending gasoline engine.

EV refers to a vehicle, not to a temporary mode of operation.

The term 'EV' in the cars description takes it out of the normal ICE vehicle into the world of more educated vehicle purchase choice; a move away from gasoline dependancy. Like my solar installation, it's a hybrid but I'm not going to waste time detailing the fact that I have an electric water heater as a back-up and that almost all solar PV folk have a grid tie-in. It's un-needed additional information that detracts from the core message; we're moving away from the old way.

JRP3s point remains decisive: Politely offering the term "solar PV" to "solar hot water heating system"s would simply be wrong.

[Doug_G]

'cause I don't think it's working, not when people keep asking me where the engine is. 'Pure-EV' can't be applied to any form of hybrid no matter how hard the marketing teams might like to. I'll grant you that it does come over a little elitist, I can't think of a way of saying all-electric-and-electric-only without sounding elitist.

How about "100% electric"?

[mpt]

@Norbert

"EV" is certainly a halo term. I think that it should be used to describe all EVs be they pure or, er, impure? They certainly apply to the Volt and to a lesser degree the Plug in Prius. I simply don't see that EV pertains to just the EVs that don't have any other form of power. It carries a meaning that is perceived to be good; I think that the PHEV does in fact need our support; certainly any infighting would be seen from the outside as simply negative and a fragmented message, though I don't think that was your message. Which, in my opinion should be EV good, ICE bad, more EV better, more ICE less good. For every Volt we sell, that's an EV future we just bought no?

I disagree that EV has to cover the only mode of operation; if it's intended to offer full ev operation within its normal usage and it's behaving like one, it is, as a result one.

@Doug_G 100% Electric works I think - I can see that on the back of my car. It does capture that this is 100% and leaves the door open for a sliding scale down to ICE. It's aspirational as well, it also allows a Volt owner to say I've done 80% of my miles on electric so my hybrid is 80% towards a Tesla or a Leaf. I like that.

[Norbert]

"EV" is certainly a halo term. I think that it should be used to describe all EVs be they pure or, er, impure?

I don't quite follow. I just argued that it should not.

They certainly apply to the Volt and to a lesser degree the Plug in Prius.

That is true up to 35 miles EPA and false above 35 miles. Why not use a term that is completely true?

I simply don't see that EV pertains to just the EVs that don't have any other form of power.

Other forms of power are hybrid forms of power. Easy enough. A minor step of education.

It carries a meaning that is perceived to be good;

But it is not the only form of goodness.

I think that the PHEV does in fact need our support;

Why? It is doing pretty well already, and they have healthy numbers for their sales projection. I feel fine directing all my limited amounts of support to EVs. At the same time, I do respect individual decisions either way, and I'm glad to see a Volt where otherwise an ICE might have been necessary.

For every Volt we sell, that's an EV future we just bought no?

Again, for the ease of discussion, EV should mean EV. It just appears wrong to have to say something like 100% EV all the time, apart form that this is not an accepted form of abbreviation.

I'm hoping for long range EVs to be a reality soon. In fact, it is more than a hope. Long range EVs compete in the above 35 mile EPA range with the ICE in the Volt, at first in a limited sense, and later on, in a more significant sense.

So sorry, but I do not see a Volt as an EV sold. I want that to eventually be an Model S or one of its successors, and not change terms from wrong to right only when that time comes.