BMW Cuts Off Toyota, GM and Ford in California: HOV loophole

[scottf200]

Thanks to Tom for pointing out this article. Oh so clever. Related to the BMW i3 but a general loop hole that I think you'll see other manufacturers take advantage of ... possibly put a smaller tank / larger battery in the Accord PHEV as one example.

Note I had trouble/timeouts bringing up this article today so I cut-n-paste some of it.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766466/1/bmw-cuts-off-toyota-gm-and-ford-in-california.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

<snip>
So what's the problem? Just buy the Volt, the Prius Plug-In, or any of the Fords, and drive alone in the California carpool lane! No?

Actually, while this will work just fine right now, this convenient party is coming to an end -- fast. You see, only 40,000 of these permits will be provided. The program only started recently, and by early October 2012 approximately 6,000 had been handed out. Now that Ford is entering the market this month, the pace should accelerate and I would be shocked if these permits don't dry up by the second half of 2013.
So what happens when these coveted 40,000 permits are exhausted? Will you then be forced to buy a potentially more expensive ($50,000 to $100,000) Tesla (TSLA) Model S? Or will you live with range anxiety in a car that may only go 75 miles on a charge, with no back-up safety valve?
<snip>
Actually, no. In a story that is all but certain to set the automotive world ablaze in strife, California's regulatory bureaucrats are on track to grant what appears to be a special status that in practice will apply to only one car -- made by BMW, nonetheless.

Yes, you read that right. After some time in the second half of 2013, the only car that will be sold in California with a gasoline back-up engine, and still eligible for the carpool lane sticker, will be a BMW.
Make no mistake: This is the ultimate trump card in the California market, and it would crush GM, Ford and Toyota -- among others.
<snip>
What is so special about the BMW i3 that will allow it to be the only car of its kind to obtain the ultimate in California car sales trump card, the carpool lane sticker? The details here are a bit murky, but here is one thing: The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.

Let's say the BMW i3 can go an average of 100 miles on pure electricity. If the gasoline engine operates at 40 MPG after that, the gasoline tank can only be 2.5 gallon (2.5 x 40 = 100).

So this car will not be the one you will likely drive from LA to San Francisco. It will, however, be an ideal commuter car (for the carpool lane) where you would know you would never get stuck if you ran out of juice.
This market is a California goldmine. BMW should just name the car "1849" and be done with it.

<snip>

 

[KJD]

What is so special about the BMW i3 that will allow it to be the only car of its kind to obtain the ultimate in California car sales trump card, the carpool lane sticker? The details here are a bit murky, but here is one thing: The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.

Let's say the BMW i3 can go an average of 100 miles on pure electricity. If the gasoline engine operates at 40 MPG after that, the gasoline tank can only be 2.5 gallon (2.5 x 40 = 100).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe GM should make the Volt go further on electricity only.

 

[edatoakrun]

More background and details on the CARB BEVx classification, which it looks like the BMW has been designed to meet, posted here last January:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847&start=170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edatoakrun:

So, it looks like CARB has named this concept the BEVx, and got it partially correct, IMO...

But CARB is wrong, IMO, if, as suggested, it requires that the driver be prevented from engaging the engine before discharging the battery, limiting the RE engine use to “limp-home” mode, only:

...Staff expects BEVxs to play a longer-term role than TZEVs [ transitional zero emission vehicle; most commonly a plug-in hybrid PHEV] because of their improved zero emission mileage potential. These vehicles would be particularly well suited to use of low upstream GHG fuels that might be more expensive, since the predominant operating cost would be offset by relatively low-cost electricity. In addition to potential for emerging alternative fuel use, there is an opportunity to explore engine technologies that are advantageous but otherwise unsuitable for application in conventional vehicles...

...It was suggested during the hearing that such a vehicle might even deliver more all-electric miles than a battery-only electric vehicle, as the availability of the range-extending engine could preclude drivers reserving battery charge to ensure they actually make it home.

The BEVx would have reduced performance while operating in APU (auxiliary power unit) mode—i.e., while using the range extender to find a charging location. Most of these vehicles are expected to have a zero-emission range of 80 miles or greater...

This vehicle has substantially more range than currently announced PHEVs, ARB staff noted, with electric range comparable to full function BEVs and will probably require ground-up BEV design...

But CARB is wrong, IMO, if, as suggested, it requires that the driver be prevented from engaging the engine before discharging the battery, limiting the RE engine use to “limp-home” mode, only:

...ARB staff suggested that the BEVx market may appeal to drivers who would not otherwise consider a BEV with the same range. Since staff considers these vehicles full function BEVs with short range APUs, it stressed the importance of having the minimum range for eligibility be equivalent to full function BEVs in the marketplace.

Basic criteria for these vehicle include:

1. the APU range is equal to or less than the all-electric range;

2. engine operation cannot occur until the battery charge has been depleted to the charge-sustaining lower limit;

3.a minimum 80 miles electric range; and

4.super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) and zero evaporative emissions compliant and TZEV warranty requirements on the
battery system...[/quote]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 20129.html

Well, nine tries and the edit function will not seem to allow me to correct the attribution of quotation errors above-sorry.

 

[TonyWilliams]

What is so special about the BMW i3 that will allow it to be the only car of its kind to obtain the ultimate in California car sales trump card, the carpool lane sticker? The details here are a bit murky, but here is one thing: The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.

Let's say the BMW i3 can go an average of 100 miles on pure electricity. If the gasoline engine operates at 40 MPG after that, the gasoline tank can only be 2.5 gallon (2.5 x 40 = 100).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe GM should make the Volt go further on electricity only.

Or make a model with a one gallon gas tank.

 

[scottf200]

A point a few people have made (Tom, DonC, adric22) is that if you have a gas extender even if small that people will use more of the "BEV" main battery.

Probably would be true for the BMW i3 w/rEX as well.

adric22 thread about his "Volt Vs. Leaf practical range comparison"
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[scottf200]

What is so special about the BMW i3 that will allow it to be the only car of its kind to obtain the ultimate in California car sales trump card, the carpool lane sticker? The details here are a bit murky, but here is one thing: The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery. Let's say the BMW i3 can go an average of 100 miles on pure electricity. If the gasoline engine operates at 40 MPG after that, the gasoline tank can only be 2.5 gallon (2.5 x 40 = 100).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe GM should make the Volt go further on electricity only.

Or make a model with a one gallon gas tank.

I'm sure you were joking but making a little larger battery and a small tank could work for people that are able to charge at home and work.

Aside: Link to greencarcongress article was bad above. Here is a working one: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/01/bevx-20120129.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SanDust]

Obviously CARB fervently believes that the perfect should be the mortal enemy of the good. Consumers want hybrids that let them go hundreds of miles while dramatically cutting emissions and pollution. Apparently CARB thinks this is a serious problem. But not to fear, the geniuses at CARB have figured out a way to discourage this behavior. Out with the good and in with goofy crippled EREVs that they don't want and probably won't buy. No $25,000 Prius for you Mr. HOV Lane Wannabe. It's a $40,000 BMW that you can't take on vacation!

These folks are seriously misguided. Realistically this is boon for owners of HOV hybrids. Everyone else is a loser.

 

[Adrian]

If BMW can do this for $40k, so should Chevy. Looking forward to the next Generation Volt with 100 miles EV and 100 mile gas range. Also a similar car from Nissan, but WITH temperature management for the battery pack. Would love to see a small 1.0L TDI plug in hybrid from VW meeting these specs too.

 

[cwerdna]

Or make a model with a one gallon gas tank.

LOL!

I haven't followed the white vs. green sticker situation that carefully. The author's referring to the 40K limit on the green HOV stickers for PHEVs like the PiP,Volt, C-Max Energi (others listed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false, right?

What stickers should BMW i3 w/small ICE receive? Green, white or something else?

For the white stickers that BEVs, FCVs and CNG vehicles get, there's no limit on the number issued still, right? The author also leaves off the choice of the RAV4 EV as being somewhere in between the Tesla Model S and the FFE and Leaf.

 

[evnow]

3.a minimum 80 miles electric range; and

I like that.

I don't know why people are upset about this. If Leaf & Mitsi i can get BEV the ZEV rating, so should i3.

 

[TomT]

Personally, I have never felt that conventional HEVs should have ever been allowed in the HOV lanes. Nothing less than a PHEV with a minimum 30 mile EPA range should be allowed. The PIP, for example, is mostly just a scam...

Obviously CARB fervently believes that the perfect should be the mortal enemy of the good. Consumers want hybrids that let them go hundreds of miles while dramatically cutting emissions and pollution. Apparently CARB thinks this is a serious problem. But not to fear, the geniuses at CARB have figured out a way to discourage this behavior. Out with the good and in with goofy crippled EREVs that they don't want and probably won't buy. No $25,000 Prius for you Mr. HOV Lane Wannabe. It's a $40,000 BMW that you can't take on vacation!
These folks are seriously misguided. Realistically this is boon for owners of HOV hybrids. Everyone else is a loser.

 

[cwerdna]

Personally, I have never felt that conventional HEVs should have ever been allowed in the HOV lanes. Nothing less than a PHEV with a minimum 30 mile EPA range should be allowed.

Why on the bolded part?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Actually, I wasn't kidding about one gallon Volt. It would be a near 80 mile car like a LEAF, cheap to make, white sticker eligible, and easy to convert to a full size gas tank in the future.

Trump BMW for cheaper money. The only problem, of course, is the 80 mile electric part of the rule.

 

[KeiJidosha]

<snip>The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.<snip>

Sounds good to me. Perfect would let the "generator module" slide out from under the rear bumper to be left home and replaced by a cargo or battery module.

 

[TonyWilliams]

<snip>The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.<snip>

Sounds good to me. Perfect would let the "generator module" slide out from under the rear bumper to be left home and replaced by a cargo or battery module.

And be used as a generator in your house, with Natural Gas option.

 

[evnow]

<snip>The range for the gasoline tank must not be larger than the all-electric range of the battery.<snip>

Sounds good to me. Perfect would let the "generator module" slide out from under the rear bumper to be left home and replaced by a cargo or battery module.

I don't like that part. They should have a minimum EV range rather than some arbitrary gas range should be less than ev range. If they think people will mostly use HOV on gas, they can perhaps have a max gas range (like 2x the EV range).

 

[TomMoloughney]

I don't like that part. They should have a minimum EV range rather than some arbitrary gas range should be less than ev range. If they think people will mostly use HOV on gas, they can perhaps have a max gas range (like 2x the EV range).

I agree. The 80 mile minimum electric range should be enough without limiting the range of the vehicle in charge sustaining mode. I'd rather see them raise the electric range a bit than limit the range and speed in which the car can travel on gas.

Tom
http://bmwi3.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TomT]

There are a variety of reasons but among them is the fact that a HEV actually gets better mileage and produces fewer emissions in stop and go traffic than in higher speed cruising... In other words, the opposite of the HOV.

Personally, I have never felt that conventional HEVs should have ever been allowed in the HOV lanes. Nothing less than a PHEV with a minimum 30 mile EPA range should be allowed.

Why on the bolded part?

 

[EVDRIVER]

I don't like that part. They should have a minimum EV range rather than some arbitrary gas range should be less than ev range. If they think people will mostly use HOV on gas, they can perhaps have a max gas range (like 2x the EV range).

I agree. The 80 mile minimum electric range should be enough without limiting the range of the vehicle in charge sustaining mode. I'd rather see them raise the electric range a bit than limit the range and speed in which the car can travel on gas.

Tom
http://bmwi3.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This makes more sense if there is a minimum efficiency rating for driving electric or they will just be big, heavy tanks. The reason the electric range is lower is the weight of the pack combined with the ice components. Trying to get high range electric and still have an ICE is the issue. I would like to see incentives to auto makers for high efficiency on pure electric as this encourages better design and not 5000 pound tanks with huge packs that simply waste more electricity and make no more sense then gas guzzlers. Even if 600 lb pack could store 300 kwh that does not mean the vehicle should not be efficient just because there is "enough" energy density. Low energy density is forcing car makers to be more efficient. Leashing people with a small tank may work but it is a waste of the utilization of the ICE components.

BMW- "efficient loophole dynamics" That's what they are all about, loopholes and compliance cars.

 

[thankyouOB]

why should hybrids get in the HOV lanes?
do they need a further incentive for drivers?

BEVs do need that incentive.