User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11368
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Tue Aug 11, 2015 5:28 pm

epirali wrote:I post this as someone who actually isn't a fan of the i3/Rex, but I have to slightly disagree. The only reason I have this car now is because I can use it every day, and use it much more and put more miles on it than my Leaf. Simply because the Rex is an enabler. It lets me go all the way down on the battery, and use the car on days I may need more range without having a chance to recharge. Before I would have switched to an ICE when it probably would not have been needed. But now I can stick to the EV mode.

Yes - as I said BEVx is a good 2010 concept.

And as for PHEVs: I disagree, unless someone really needs mostly an ICE with some limited BEV range. I think a lot of people like me need mostly a BEV with some limited ICE range. That is why I didn't get a Volt (well one of the reasons).

The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips. Most families have 2 cars, anyway.
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:44 am

evnow wrote:The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips. Most families have 2 cars, anyway.


Well it may be a 2010 concept but in 2015 only one car implements range extension that I am aware of as mostly EV, Rex secondary (Volt and PHEVs are the other way round). So it is valid until 200 mile non tesla cars are in the market (2017?).

Ultimately if BEVs are going to require a second ICE in each family are you thinking 50% or less max switchover? When adding a small Rex may pretty much enable a 100% potential market? I think that one "long trip" per year may really keep a large group of people from considering a pure EV. As such Rex is a psychological enabler, even if it just lets people get over their concern and jump to a BEV. I don't see anything wrong with that.

edatoakrun
Posts: 4443
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:22 am

evnow wrote:...The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips...

That may be what you want, but I'd rather drive a BEVx that cost less than either of those two cars, and had a higher percentage of its total miles driven on E than both of them put together.
no condition is permanent

LKK
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:27 am

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:09 am

I believe a shift from carbon based fuels to electricity produced from renewable sources is a worthwhile goal. For a number of reasons pure battery electric vehicles do not appeal to the average vehicle buyer. But things are improving, cost, capacity, recharge time, reliability and infrastructure are improving. Soon BEVs will be a practical and cost efficient means of transportation for the average buyer. In the interim the range extended EV seems to make a lot of sense because average citizens can use them much as they do with ordinary ICE vehicles, while displacing gas/diesel for a large proportion of their driving. Fossil fuel range extenders are far from the perfect solution but they are a whole lot better than doing nothing.

edatoakrun
Posts: 4443
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:21 am

LKK wrote:I believe a shift from carbon based fuels to electricity produced from renewable sources is a worthwhile goal. For a number of reasons pure battery electric vehicles do not appeal to the average vehicle buyer. But things are improving, cost, capacity, recharge time, reliability and infrastructure are improving. Soon BEVs will be a practical and cost efficient means of transportation for the average buyer. In the interim the range extended EV seems to make a lot of sense because average citizens can use them much as they do with ordinary ICE vehicles, while displacing gas/diesel for a large proportion of their driving. Fossil fuel range extenders are far from the perfect solution but they are a whole lot better than doing nothing.

IMO, correct (and I'm not criticizing you when I add) and also obvious.

So why is it we still can't buy a BEVx, other than the i3, whose generator's usefulness is severely reduced by the ICE choice, the fuel choice, limited energy storage, and limited operating cycle... by design?

I suspect that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, between BEV manufacturers which want sell the image of pure BEVs, no matter how expensive and impractical for very long trips, and the traditional (ICEV) auto manufactures, who also like the idea of selling a pure BEV as another vehicle, in addition to the ICE/hybrid/PHEV vehicles they really want to sell to consumers, to fill up their two, three, or four car garages.
no condition is permanent

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:43 am

edatoakrun wrote:So why is it we still can't buy a BEVx, other than the i3, whose generator's usefulness is severely reduced by the ICE choice, the fuel choice, limited energy storage, and limited operating cycle... by design?

I suspect that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, between BEV manufacturers which want sell the image of pure BEVs, no matter how expensive and impractical for very long trips, and the traditional (ICEV) auto manufactures, who also like the idea of selling a pure BEV as another vehicle, in addition to the ICE/hybrid/PHEV vehicles they really want to sell to consumers, to fill up their two, three, or four car garages.


Its a very good point. I wonder how much of this is because the manufacturers are stuck between the "purist" EV drivers who hold purity over practical progress (the early adopters) and the fact that regulation and perception keeps them from marketing an effective BEV/Rex to everyone else, the ones who either don't care about purity or want to drive an electric vehicle but simply won't put up with the hassle under the guise of "its relaxing to sit around for 30 minutes if I find a charger." You can see this even here in discussion of Rex and or FC EVs.

Sad part is if the i3 was $10k less and had a real useful Rex (say even 6-8 gallons un-crippled) I know a lot of people who would buy it without hesitation as a primary vehicle.

I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:00 am

epirali wrote:I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.


Honestly, you should write for the Wall Street Journal. Or Heritage Foundation. That is just rich.

The folks promoting / installing / buying are DAMAGING the adoption of EVs. Why exactly are you on this forum?

You have a plug-in hybrid. There are a multitude of plug-in hybrids available for you to buy, in addition to the one you have. GM is just releasing their new and improved plug-in hybrid, the Volt, in addition to a 200 mile range EV called the Bolt late next year. They currently have the Spark EV with just under 100 miles of range. You can get them all from one company, plug-in hybrid or EV.

BMW offers that in one car, hybrid or EV.

Please, buy yourself a gasoline container, and a 10,000psi hydrogen tank full of natural gas derived hydrogen, and build a shrine with them. Call it the "Fossil Fuel God", and pray to it everyday. Convince yourself that this is the future... but, I don't recommend lighting any candles, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:15 am

TonyWilliams wrote:
epirali wrote:I wonder besides basic marketing/regulations how much are EV purist/adopters damaging the adoption of EVs.


Honestly, you should write for the Wall Street Journal. Or Heritage Foundation. That is just rich.

The folks promoting / installing / buying are DAMAGING the adoption of EVs. Why exactly are you on this forum?

You have a plug-in hybrid. There are a multitude of plug-in hybrids available for you to buy, in addition to the one you have. GM is just releasing their new and improved plug-in hybrid, the Volt, in addition to a 200 mile range EV called the Bolt late next year. They currently have the Spark EV with just under 100 miles of range. You can get them all from one company, plug-in hybrid or EV.

BMW offers that in one car, hybrid or EV.

Please, buy yourself a gasoline container, and a 10,000psi hydrogen tank full of natural gas derived hydrogen, and build a shrine with them. Call it the "Fossil Fuel God", and pray to it everyday. Convince yourself that this is the future... but, I don't recommend lighting any candles, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:


First, as I said elsewhere, I honestly have no interest in engaging in a discussion. It doesn't really go anywhere.

Second: if this forum is for your use and not anyone elses, then I'll happily bugger off. I have learned a lot here, have been an active participant, and have tried to help and contribute. But if this is not your personal forum please stop asking me or telling me what I should do or why I am here. I am here to do many things, including provide a balancing view to the ones like yours.

Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.

User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:30 pm

epirali wrote:Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.


Nobody with any logic thinks that my views of:

ubiquitous, widespread, logically placed, reliable, uber fast DC charging available 24/7

and the adoption of EVs is therefore damaging EV adoption.

You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.

Further, my view point on the environment is that we distance ourselves from fossil fuels and other clearly dangerous to mankind and environment power sources, like nuclear.

We have enough sun, wind and waves to make all the electrical power that mankind needs today, and at any point in the foreseeable future.

Your stated position is that we continue fossil fuels and nuclear (even expand nuclear?) with:

1) hybrid electric cars
2) hydrogen cars with fueling derived from fossil fuels
3) nuke powerplants

We couldn't be more opposite. You are a danger to the environment and mankind.

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:38 pm

TonyWilliams wrote:
epirali wrote:Third: I strongly believe that your position is damaging the adoption of BEVs. You obviously have a very different viewpoint and you share it. But there really is no point to try to engage me on every post I make, is there? We have differing world views and view points.


Nobody with any logic thinks that my views of:

ubiquitous, widespread, logically placed, reliable, uber fast DC charging available 24/7

and the adoption of EVs is therefore damaging EV adoption.

You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.


No, you keep using the word troll, but I don't think it means what you think! Disagreement is not trolling.

What is damaging EV adoption is the purity test. That EV must meet some random standard like using Rex is just bad. When in fact offering Rex helps adoption of BEVs for a lot of the population who don't care about purity tests. Or it helps people like me avoid using ICE just because I have the safety net of a Rex. My personal usage of electric only trips has probably gone up by 1/3 or more because I have a Rex, although I have used maybe 3-4 gallons of gas in the entire time I have owned the i3 (and that was because I had an unexpected trip back to the airport to pick up a friend, which with a pure EV I would have had to drive home, get an ICE and go back).

My experience has been when someone was interested in the Leaf and would ask me the range they would almost always say "I really like the idea but it just won't work for me." When I show them the i3 and explain the Rex all of a sudden they are not hesitant. The basic logic becomes "hey if I was stuck I could just use the Rex."

So how is this not a simple and clear example of how it hurts adoption to arbitrary reject something? As someone else posted here this may not be needed when there are affordable 200 mile BEVs, but we are still a few years away.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”