Pure BEV Dogma

[JRP3]

From my point of view, if you put electricity and gasoline/diesel into a car, it's a plug-in hybrid.

Of course.

But the terminology stuff isn't easy. Some electric cars have parafin/ethanol heaters, so that they don't use their limited battery capacity on heating. Should they have their own term, or maybe the electric cars without them should have their own terms?

Since we classify vehicles by their propulsion systems referencing their means of heating seems less than reasonable.

[Yggdrasill]

Of course.

Since we classify vehicles by their propulsion systems referencing their means of heating seems less than reasonable.

Do we classify vehicles by their propulsion systems? Or do we classify them by the energy they consume?

Is a hydrogen car a hydrogen car or an electric car? Is a compressed air car a compressed air car, or a pneumatic motor car? Is a diesel car a diesel car or an ICE car?

If you accept that we classify vehicles based on the energy they consume, it would be entirely reasonable to factor in the heating energy.

[jerry33]

Maybe a classification flow chart:

Use fossil fuel--> Yes-->has an electric motor--> Yes-->Hybrid
Use fossil fuel--> No--> has an electric motor--> Yes-->BEV
Use fossil fuel--> No--> has an electric motor--> No-->Other

[JRP3]

If you accept that we classify vehicles based on the energy they consume, it would be entirely reasonable to factor in the heating energy.

Since most EV's will use battery power for heat it's not really an issue, and I doubt anyone will adopt your labeling methods. I'm trying to keep things simple with fewer hair splitting distinctions, not more of them.

[Yggdrasill]

Since most EV's will use battery power for heat it's not really an issue, and I doubt anyone will adopt your labeling methods. I'm trying to keep things simple with fewer hair splitting distinctions, not more of them.

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying the issue isn't cut-and-dried. If you want to capture everything in perfect detail, you need to have a lot of lables. And some companies and people seem to want to capture everything in perfect detail due to marginal improvement X they've come up with.

[GSP]

Even simpler for me
So if someone uses the Volt for daily drives longer than 100 miles, using petroleum for the majority of miles, it suddenly changes classification and becomes a plug in hybrid? If the Karmta is built exactly as it is now but instead with a higher C rate pack that allows full performance from the E motor alone it goes from a plug in hybrid to an EREV? Likewise the PiP with the upsized components I suggested but the exact same design could also become an EREV in your world, depending on how it's used. To me that's a major flaw in your reasoning, you want to classify a vehicle depending on how it's used, not how it's designed and built. As I've said, using a Volt only with the ICE and never plugging it in doesn't make it an ICE.

I think David's definition is much simpler, and also more accurate.

The PiP and Karma powertrains are close to providing EREV capability, and could be produced as EREVs with the design changes you mention. However, these are design changes, not something a driver could do. In the case of the PiP, they would involve significantly higher unit costs.

GSP

[SByer]

I completely agree with David. Does the car get better (possibly ignoring range ) if you strip out the ICE and add batteries? The Volt is a big yes. The Karma needs design changes, and, IMO of course, the PiP just needs to be sent to the 'embarrassing lack of engineering effort' scrap heap (or stupid auto company management penny pinching scrap heap, if you prefer).

I think the terminology should support the goals, which, to me, is as many electric miles as possible. Calling the Volt something different than the PiP or the Fisker forwards those goals.

[JRP3]

Unless it adds confusion and causes a large part of the general public to call the Volt a 40 mile EV that costs $40K, with the obvious implication that it's not worth it. In your example if you strip out the motor of the Karma and add batteries, you don't need any design changes, because the larger battery pack will also allow full electric power, but with the Volt the car won't work without the ICE, unless you redesign it significantly. In truth a series plug in hybrid such as the Karma is closer to an "EREV" than the Volt, if you think "EREV" is a valid term.

[stopcrazypp]

Do we classify vehicles by their propulsion systems? Or do we classify them by the energy they consume?

Is a hydrogen car a hydrogen car or an electric car? Is a compressed air car a compressed air car, or a pneumatic motor car? Is a diesel car a diesel car or an ICE car?

If you accept that we classify vehicles based on the energy they consume, it would be entirely reasonable to factor in the heating energy.

I think what JRP3 is trying to refer to is SAE's definition of hybrid (see page 5 of linked pdf):
"A vehicle with two or more energy storage systems both of which must provide propulsion power – either together or independently."

So we classify vehicles generally not by their "propulsion systems", but rather by their energy storage systems that "provide propulsion power".

An example is that even though a battery runs a gasoline/diesel/ICE car's accessories (radio, fans, etc), we can't call it a hybrid because of that. The energy storage system being examined has to power propulsion. So under this definition, an EV using parafin/ethanol based heaters would not qualify as a hybrid.

The exception to this classification is "EV" when used with modifiers (without modifiers, EV generally is a contraction for "electric car"). For example, the "EV" in HEV refers to "electric drive vehicle" not the energy storage (so any vehicle with electric motors for propulsion would qualify even if they had no direct electricity storage).

http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Medi...docs/paper.pdf

Since I gave that link, we might as well look at SAE's definition of PHEV:
"A hybrid vehicle with the ability to store and use off-board electrical energy in the RESS (rechargeable energy storage system)."

From the same document, GM's definition of EREV (which SAE has not recognized, that term was invented by GM):
"A vehicle that functions as a full-performance battery electric vehicle when energy is available from an onboard RESS and having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available."

First thing to note is that hybrid > PHEV > EREV (where > means "is a superset of").

So by GM's definition, a Pip is not an EREV, Karma also not an EREV (doesn't get full performance in Stealth mode). A weird effect of this definition is that if Fisker disabled the ability to select Sport mode (so it gets the same performance with ICE on, even if it's lower than the max they can get), then it would qualify as a EREV. And the other change Fisker can make is to add a bigger battery (so it is matched to the motor power so the ICE is not needed for peak performance) and it would also be an EREV.

[Jaff]

I'd support this Jerry...whilst the purists may want a more accurate description, at the end of the day, the terminology here is for a nascent automobile market segment.

When dealing with the general public (with respect to an important industry like automobiles), I think it is more important for the masses to clearly understand the differences between the propulsion systems / energy systems than to confuse them for the sake of 100% accuracy according to the purists...remember, when dealing with the masses, the lowest common denominator...

Maybe a classification flow chart:

Use fossil fuel--> Yes-->has an electric motor--> Yes-->Hybrid
Use fossil fuel--> No--> has an electric motor--> Yes-->BEV
Use fossil fuel--> No--> has an electric motor--> No-->Other