Pure BEV Dogma

[scaesare]

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?

Again, the architecture by how the platform is designed and built, not what happens if you manage to use a narrow subset of it's capability.

If you are going to specify a car capable of 400 miles range, 50 MPG, 160 HP, and 110 MPH top speed[1] and build a vehicle to do that, then characterize that design.

If you want to advertise it as an EV then honestly spec what it can do as an EV: 50 miles range, 60 HP, and a 70MPH top speed.

[1] Specifications for illustrative purposes only

 

[Red Sage]

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.

Very well stated. I remember vaguely that at one point Toyota marketed the Prius as, 'An Electric Car that Runs on Gas', or something to that effect. I really didn't like that characterization. Naturally, it didn't last very long as a promotion, because someone else probably noted that wasn't exactly true and stuff.

One thing that I notice is that no matter the hybrid drivetrain configuration, it seems the electric motor is used to assist transmission of power from an ICE. Sometimes the ICE is just a generator, providing electricity to drive the electric motor. Other times, the electric motor is sandwiched between the ICE and transmission, or between the transmission and the drive wheels... somewhere. It seems that traditional automobile manufacturers are only interested in the torque that electric motors supply at low speed 0-15 MPH, or 0-30 MPH, and nothing else really. I suspect that the next move is going to be to turn the various CVT solutions into fully electrified transmissions and that there will be resistance to that, until someone is able to eek out a substantial increase in fuel economy paired with reliability.

 

[Red Sage]

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?

I guess it depends upon which percentage one finds more important. I like to compare the percentage of fully electric range to the overall range of a plug-in hybrid vehicle. I do understand that others prefer to compare the percentage of their own miles driven fully electric to the percentage when they use gasoline.

EPA Comparison: BMW i3 REX, BMW 330e, Ford Fusion Energi, Chevrolet Volt

Of these options, my last commute was barely ten miles one way, and only the BMW 330e wouldn't have gotten me there and back home on electricity all the way. Yet it is the second most expensive of these four cars, and also has the second shortest overall range of them all. Thus, it is second worst in two categories and absolutely worst otherwise. Compared to the BMWs, both the Ford and Chevrolet look like rock stars... At least, until the Tesla Model ☰ arrives.

What I really don't like is how traditional automobile manufacturers seem to consistently make it plain that putting a plug on their cars will severely compromise them. The cars cost more and the range goes down, and typically that means the performance drops too. They want to make sure that prospective Customers are 'punished' for choosing the car with the plug. They do this in situations where it should not be necessary at all. That is the situation I rail against most when it comes to plug-in hybrids. The sole 'reward' someone may get is the ability to 'use less gas'. Compared to the possibility of using no gasoline at all, that seems like a booby prize to me.

 

[Drucifer]

I will go back to what I have said before;

Gas/Diesel ICE only is easy to define
BEV is easy to define
It is hybrid that gets really complicated, but for most consumers, there are only two factors:

Since the drive train is primarily one thing and secondarily something else that is the 1st factor
Does it have a plug or not is a 2nd factor.

Volt: Hybrid, primarily electric with a plug
PIP: Hybrid, primarily gas with a plug
Prius: Hybrid, primarily gas without a plug
i3 Rex: Hybrid, primarily electric with a plug
Ford cMax Energi: Hybrid, primarily gas with a plug

And so on. the only two I know that are primarily electric in architecture are Volt and i3, everything else is a gas conversion job.

I know SAE does it differently. I know some people care about clutched in ICE drive trains. Good for them, but I don't really care.

 

[scaesare]

Huh... I thought I'd be the first post in this thread since 2017... only to find out the last post was 18 month ago in 2016! How time flies.

In any case, I found the professor's description in the first 60 seconds of the Volt video interesting: