The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

edatoakrun said:

The reason an i3 driver who made the trip you copied and pasted in your post would find themselves crawling up highway 80 at ~30 mph in the right lane with a line of really unhappy truckers on his bumper, is not due to limitations placed by the kWh output of the ICE, it is due to the limitations placed on its operation by BMW engineers.

An ICE generator with ~one third the I-3s kW output would be completely sufficient to climb over Donner pass at ~70 mph if the driver were allowed to turn it on at the optimal time, long before the battery charge was depleted.

Click to expand...

First of all, the "limit" was placed by BMW management who place more emphasis on CA ZEV credits than by Engineers.

Second, "long before battery charge is depleted" is a vague statement. Esp. combined with "one third the I-3s kW output would be completely sufficient to climb over Donner pass at ~70 mph".

This is like saying "If I train for long enough I can climb mount K2".

For eg. in my case if I go across one of our nearby passes - and want to come back, I'll have to charge for 3 hours. That would make REx not that useful. The way to make REx really useful is to be able to climb the pass at 70 mph on the generator power alone.

="evnow"

edatoakrun said:

The reason an i3 driver who made the trip you copied and pasted in your post would find themselves crawling up highway 80 at ~30 mph in the right lane with a line of really unhappy truckers on his bumper, is not due to limitations placed by the kWh output of the ICE, it is due to the limitations placed on its operation by BMW engineers.

An ICE generator with ~one third the I-3s kW output would be completely sufficient to climb over Donner pass at ~70 mph if the driver were allowed to turn it on at the optimal time, long before the battery charge was depleted.

Click to expand...

="evnow"..."long before battery charge is depleted" is a vague statement. Esp. combined with "one third the I-3s kW output would be completely sufficient to climb over Donner pass at ~70 mph"...

Click to expand...

Exactly when the BEVx driver would want to start the generator is dependent on their intended driving speed, weather conditions, etc.

For the vast majority of trips, the x would not need to be used at all.

What is important, is that the BEVxs combination of initial battery charge and the ICEs kW output while driving is sufficient to drive any road at all (legal) speeds for your desired trip length, whatever the ascent required, under all weather conditions.

As in my OP If you want a BEVx to drive from the bay area to Tahoe during the Winter with one stop, you'd need ~ 20 kWh available from the pack, and ~8 kW, for a mid-size car like the LEAF, assuming you did not require kWh for heating the passenger cabin, but used your hydrocarbon fuel instead.

If it's important to you to make that trip in a much larger vehicle and without stopping, you'd need a much larger battery and /or a much higher kW ICE, such as in example I gave of the hypothetical Tesla X50x25.

="evnow"...For eg. in my case if I go across one of our nearby passes - and want to come back, I'll have to charge for 3 hours. That would make REx not that useful...

Click to expand...

I doubt that is correct, since once you are over any mountain pass, both regen from any subsequent descent and the x generator (if you want it to) can replenish the battery.

Take a look at your speed and ascent/descent, to see how large a kWh pack and kW generator you'd actually need, for the trip you'd like to make.

I believe the Tahoe trip (over Donner pass, on highway 80) both due to the high speed (when not jammed up by traffic, which I assume is much less frequently now than when I used to drive that route regularly) and large ascent, is close to the maximum average sustained kW demand anyone could encounter, at legal speeds on USA roads.

In any case, any BEV or BEVx should have a DC port to recharge quickly, wherever the passengers need a rest stop, since it will always be desirable to recharge the battery from the grid, when you need to stop for the passenger's needs anyway.

="evnow"...The way to make REx really useful is to be able to climb the pass at 70 mph on the generator power alone

Click to expand...

If you feel that way, then you probably want a PHEV, like the Volt, not a BEVx.

epirali wrote:
...Ok sorry about missing the point. I am confused...

a Rex with 1/3 output is (not) sufficient for extended driving.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want extended driving powered ONLY by an ICE, then you need ~an ICE drivetrain ~as large, complex, expensive, and heavy, as that used by an ICEV, which robs the vehicle of both energy and cost efficiency.

In other words, you want a PHEV.

I only want an ICE large enough to extend my BEV's range to my next stop, where I can recharge the battery.

IMO, that is the whole point of driving a BEVx.

I don't quite agree. Generally not much argument with your point, but ev w/Rex allows

1) full use of EV range, including trips where running 10 miles short would make me take ice but now can take EV for most of the trip, and

2) allows better adoption of EVs for single car drivers, who may occasionally need to go far.

Without the stupid CARB rules and with a 6 gallon tank the i3 could do both functions easily. Where now a leaf would be out of the question. And I am not a fan of PHEVs, with one exception there is too much complexity for little to no gain.

edatoakrun said:

Again, if you want extended driving powered ONLY by an ICE, then you need ~an ICE drivetrain ~as large, complex, expensive, and heavy, as that used by an ICEV, which robs the vehicle of both energy and cost efficiency.

In other words, you want a PHEV.

Click to expand...

No - if that is what I want, I know enough to state it that way.

You & I fundamentally disagree on what a useful BEVx should be.

epirali said:

Without the stupid CARB rules and with a 6 gallon tank the i3 could do both functions easily.

Click to expand...

This was already somewhat addressed a bit up thread, but your comment is just wrong.

The "stupid" part for CARB was allowing a gasoline burning car in the Zero Emision Vehicle category. The i3 is the only one.

If BMW had not gotten that CARB approval, it's likely that the i3 with 650cc motorcycle engine would be configured just like it is in EU (except for the sunroof and Menekkes inlet).

BMW singularly made the decision to hamper the car to fit a category with which it clearly does not belong. The three CARB-ZEV credits that BMW earns for every gasoline car in the ZEV category nets them an estimated additional $4000 value per credit, or $12,000 per car.

That's why it's hampered.

TonyWilliams said:

epirali said:

Without the stupid CARB rules and with a 6 gallon tank the i3 could do both functions easily.

Click to expand...

This was already somewhat addressed a bit up thread, but your comment is just wrong.

The "stupid" part for CARB was allowing a gasoline burning car in the Zero Emision Vehicle category. The i3 is the only one.

If BMW had not gotten that CARB approval, it's likely that the i3 with 650cc motorcycle engine would be configured just like it is in EU (except for the sunroof and Menekkes inlet).

BMW singularly made the decision to hamper the car to fit a category with which it clearly does not belong. The three CARB-ZEV credits that BMW earns for every gasoline car in the ZEV category nets them an estimated additional $4000 value per credit, or $12,000 per car.

That's why it's hampered.

Click to expand...

I am aware of this, I simply don't agree with you. The point of regulations to reduce emissions should be to PROMOTE use of electric and clean vehicles, not adhere to some arbitrary purity test. In my opinion the i3 (and idea of Rex for a mainly BEV vehicle) is a great enabler. It actually allows greater adoption of BEVs. So if a car like the i3 has a Rex and is used far more often than an ICE only it should be strongly incentivized. Obviously there is a balance, but I'll stick to my assertion: a BEV with 100 mile pure electric and an occasional range of 100-150 miles with gas will actually get many more people using BEVs vast majority of the time.

And i3 was influenced by US regulations, in addition to EU regulations. So without the tactical errors in CARB it may have been a different Rex. Only downside would have been weight but that is easily controlled by the driver and amount of gas in the tank.

Yes, I've heard (quite loudly) that we should all switch to hybrids (from EV) to "promote" not burning gasoline.

The only reason you need a gasoline engine at all is because the BMW i3 has a pathetic short range on batteries, and an even more pathetic DC charging network.

Should I get a BMW motorcycle engine for my Tesla? You know, to promote EVs? I think I can fit one in the frunk, with a couple Jerry cans of pure dino juice.

I'll turn it on every time I'm showing the car to a prospective EV convert. "See, gasoline is the answer! Buy an EV".

TonyWilliams said:

Yes, I've heard (quite loudly) that we should all switch to hybrids (from EV) to "promote" not burning gasoline.

The only reason you need a gasoline engine at all is because the BMW i3 has a pathetic short range on batteries, and an even more pathetic DC charging network.

Should I get a BMW motorcycle engine for my Tesla? You know, to promote EVs? I think I can fit one in the frunk, with a couple Jerry cans of pure dino juice.

I'll turn it on every time I'm showing the car to a prospective EV convert. "See, gasoline is the answer! Buy an EV".

Click to expand...

Actually yes, if you could then show people how your EV is not an $80k plus status/rarified example of a BEV, rather a real alternative to everyday transport. I am only responding in the same tone you use in what should be a basic discussion.

I think we simply have different philosophies. I believe that perfect is the enemy of the good. I don't care to hold an ideal in mind, rather to quickly convince the 90+% who would not even consider a BEV to take a serious look. I am previlaged enough to be able to afford a Tesla, but even I don't want one. It still doesn't solve the long range problem today. And most people I know can't and won't spend that kind of money even if they want one. But I have already gotten three other people at the office to consider and get Nissan Leaf and EV golf. But they also have multiple ICE vehicles so they don't care about range. As I said before in order for BEVs to make a dent in single car users they must have a long range alternative. And no, neither tesla's supercharger nor DC fast charger network an alternative. Very few people will go out of their way to find charging and hope it works and is free while they sit around for 30 minutes.

In fact I switched from a Leaf to i3/Rex for just that reason. And I find the i3 inferior to the Leaf in almost all metrics. Yet I'll stick with it for now simply because of the Rex. It lets me drive a BEV all the time, and I've already had multiple unforeseen trips where the Rex saved my behind.

I am previlaged enough to be able to afford a Tesla, but even I don't want one. It still doesn't solve the long range problem today.

Click to expand...

This is just bizarre and silly. I drove my car about a 1000 miles per week right now. I did 1000 miles in one 24 hour period... easily.

Your assertion that an 80 mile range car with gasoline power is the only option to longer range (not even a Tesla car) is just short sighted. With your support of the oil industry comes the flip to that... you don't need DC fast charging. Congrats, the status quo is preserved.

I've had these conversations several times on this forum. If gasoline works for you, USE GASOLINE. But, don't try to convince me that gasoline is the answer to a non-gasoline world. I personally have no gasoline cars of the three cars in my garage. None go just 80-ish miles. Only one is a Tesla, however all are Tesla powered. Two were likely lower cost to purchase than your BMW hybrid.

Consumers don't need "free" public charging to adopt cars. Quite the opposite; they are accustomed to paying for transportation energy. They demand a robust, dependable and fast DC charging network, like the Tesla Supercharger network.

Here are the other cars that go more than 80 miles in the following parameters. None burn fossil fuels.
Range at about 65mph indicated (100km / 62mph actual ground speed) on dry, hard surface level road with no wind or cabin climate control with new condition battery at 70F, battery capacity is "useable" amount, not advertised amount. Ranges are at maximum available charge and EPA rating is the maximum published.


1) Kia
Soul EV - 4 miles per kWh (250 wattHours per mile) * 27kWh = 108 miles / EPA 93
Standard with DC charging

2) VW
eGolf - 4.1 miles per kWh (244 wattHours per mile) * 24kWh = 100 miles / EPA
Available with DC charging

3) Mercedes
B-Class ED - 3.6 miles per kWh (278 wattHours per mile) * 31.5kWh = 113 miles / EPA 87


4) Toyota (available used only)
Rav4 EV - 3.4 miles per kWh (295 wattHours per mile) * 41.8kWh = 142 miles / EPA 113
Available with aftermarket DC charging

********

In the very near future (1-3 years), we will have:

5) Nissan
LEAF with 28kWh (30kWh advertised) this year and likely 40kWh-ish batteries, and possibly with a gasoline hybrid option! Likely 100 - 160 miles on electricity.
Sporadic worldwide DC charging infrastructure

6) GM
Chevy Bolt with 40kWh-ish battery, for 180 mile range
Marginal DC infrastructure

7) Tesla
Model 3 with 50-60kWh battery, for 180-210 mile range
Widespread Tesla Supercharger network with intelligent design

There is a very large leap between my position of realism to get BEVs accepted in the mass market and the position that we should all burn gasoline. I think you are not acknowledging that the goal is the same, the methods and efficacy is where we don't agree. I am aware of all under 100 mile range BEVs, am well aware of POTENTIAL 200 mile BEVs coming in 2-3 years. None of which changes my position that having a gasoline Rex on any of these will help adoption.

What I find baffling is this: if theoretically Rex on BEV gets much more adoption and most BEV w/Rex owners use the Rex say 10% of the time how is this WORSE than if they stuck to an ICE 100% of the time due to range concerns? I'm sorry I just don't get it and I am not trying to be obtuse.

And BTW I also own three electric cars, and i3 w/Rex kept me with three!

epirali said:

... well aware of POTENTIAL 200 mile BEVs coming in 2-3 years. None of which changes my position that having a gasoline Rex on any of these will help adoption.

What I find baffling is this: if theoretically Rex on BEV gets much more adoption and most BEV w/Rex owners use the Rex say 10% of the time how is this WORSE than if they stuck to an ICE 100% of the time due to range concerns? I'm sorry I just don't get it and I am not trying to be obtuse.

Click to expand...

If gasoline is your position, why are you challenging me? I don't need gasoline AT ALL, and do not promote gasoline usage. I do not promote the methods used to procure that gasoline, or the environmental damage that results from its use.

You do.

I can get a sense of pessimism from you concerning EVs in general, calling longer range cars "potential" when in fact I'm driving a longer range EV than any proposed.

I don't agree with your premise that hybrids are what will bring mass adoption of "EVs". I predict that a robust, dependable, ubiquitous DC charger infrastructure and 200-300 mile range cars will be the answer.

We fundamentally disagree, both in what EVs with proper infrastructure can do, as well as your tacit support of the oil industry that I fundamentally do not support.

Good luck promoting gasoline cars (or hydrogen cars) on a forum devoted to an EV.

I understand we don't agree, and I respect that. But please stop saying the same wrong thing about my position. I am not promoting gasoline cars, I am promoting more adoption of BEVs (not hybrids) via Rex. It's not the same thing. And I also have hopes for electric cars that run on hydrogen.

I am a big fan of electric cars, not wedded to batteries alone. And I want the fastest way to get most adoption possible. And finally I do not like hybrids or small range electric only hybrids much. And to say there are over 200 mile electric cars now you are ignoring my belief that BEVs CAN NOT SUCCEED in a rarified market. They MUST fall to around $30k or they will not be much mass adoption. Tesla and Leaf sales are a tiny tiny drop in the bucket, it has to change. And in my option the i3 as a whole is not at all a success in this regards.

And finally I am not challenging you at all. We just disagree on method, that's all.

By SAE’s definition, a hybrid is:
“A vehicle with two or more energy storage systems both of which must provide propulsion power – either together or independently.” To be a “pure electric car” it has to have only electricity as a “fuel” for propulsion and currently only the BEV meets that criteria.

1) I don't support gasoline cars, fracking, pollution, and other environmental damage
2) "REx" is a silly acronym for a gasoline hybrid car
3) I don't believe hybrids are required for mass adoption of EVs (and neither does Tesla)
4) I don't deny people who want a hybrid... it's not for me

Using hydrocarbon fuel and an ICE for range extension makes even more sense for larger vehicles, like trucks and SUVs, than for cars, vehicles which carrying capacity is limited to four or five people and their luggage.

edatoakrun said:

(see page 28)...A Tesla X (for example) equipped with a ~25 kW generator and only a ~50 kWh pack could easily make the same ~three hour ~200 mile Winter Tahoe trip non-stop, while a 90 kWh Tesla X BEV would probably have to stop to recharge en-route.

The hypothetical Tesla X50x25, would also cost a lot less than an X90, and due to the lower weight, handle better and have superior efficiency.

Click to expand...

I don't expect Tesla ever will build a BEVx,, but I wouldn't be surprised to see BMW, Mercedes, or even Infiniti do so, in the next few years.

IMO Tesla has built its brand on a collection of clichés, which include the derivative ICEV design (look, a huge hood...that's empty inside?), "free" Charging, and using batteries exclusively for energy storage.

Even though this results in a grossly inefficient, overweight, and overpriced design, the S has found a market, evidently by appealing to the significant segment of buyers with narcissistic tendencies.

Not so sure how well the X is going work out for Tesla though, since an SUV is where having a few hundred extra kWh in the tank (as with a BEVx, PHEV or ICEV) will be missed the most.

A Tesla X will be fine for suburban minivan use, but for energy intensive driving such as winter mountain use and towing over reasonable ranges, exactly the sort of uses for which some are convinced they need a SUV, many may find that the X falls short...

I think in general within a couple of years BEVx will not make much sense. It made sense in 2010.

If a 200 miles BEV can be had for 35k, why bother with an ICE ?

evnow said:

I think in general within a couple of years BEVx will not make much sense. It made sense in 2010.

If a 200 miles BEV can be had for 35k, why bother with an ICE ?

Click to expand...

If by "200 miles" you mean a 50 kWh (available) BEV, that battery capacity may only get you only half that far in extremely demanding miles, such as high-speed winter driving with large ascents, or when towing.

If you mean a BEV for ~$35 k with ~100 kWh available battery capacity, which would have the ability to make the ~200 mile Winter Tahoe trip example from page one on a single charge (except when towing) I think that's much more than a couple of years off, maybe more like a couple of decades.

In either case, why would anyone want to have the most rapidly depreciating component of their BEV scaled to meet the needs you have only a few times a year, when there are much lower cost options, like an ICE range extender, or the no cost option, just waiting ~ 20 to 30 minutes for a DC charge?

I really think the desire to put enough batteries to power three or four BEVs (or BEVxs) into a single car, given the large dollar and environmental costs of manufacturing batteries today and for the foreseeable future, is more a symptom of a hoarding fetish than the expression of any real need.

When and if batteries are developed with much higher energy densities and much lower costs, then yes, an ICE (or turbine, or fuel cell) range extender will not be necessary.

But the BEVx I was asking for ~four years ago on page one of this thread, is still the one I'd buy today, if given the chance.

evnow said:

I think in general within a couple of years BEVx will not make much sense. It made sense in 2010.

If a 200 miles BEV can be had for 35k, why bother with an ICE ?

Click to expand...

Actually this is exactly why I got the i3/Rex, to cover the gap until 200 mile commuter cost cars are on the market. At 200 mile/$30k the only thing holding back BEVs over ICE is charging infrastructure. But it should significantly increase BEV market. A lot of people I run into who have been intrigued by the Leaf (and who are not in the Tesla price range) are only held back by the range, but would jump at 200 mile real range.

Only caveat is I also have ICE vehicles for long haul. But so do most potential BEV customers.

edatoakrun said:

If by "200 miles" you mean a 50 kWh (available) BEV, that battery capacity may only get you only half that far in extremely demanding miles, such as high-speed winter driving with large ascents, or when towing.

If you mean a BEV for ~$35 k with ~100 kWh available battery capacity, which would have the ability to make the ~200 mile Winter Tahoe trip example from page one on a single charge (except when towing) I think that's much more than a couple of years off, maybe more like a couple of decades.

Click to expand...

I don't want to buy a BEV that covers 100% of my scenarios - just 95%. "200 mile Winter Tahoe trip example from page one on a single charge (except when towing) " is outside that 95%.

Afterall I don't buy a Boeing to fly to EU or Asia.

As to what 200 miles is - it is a 60 kWh vehicle. I expect to be able to get one in 3 years.

I no longer need a BEVx - afterall a regular PHEV is more efficient than BEVx in extended range mode and won't suck at freeway driving like i3 does.

evnow said:

I don't want to buy a BEV that covers 100% of my scenarios - just 95%. "200 mile Winter Tahoe trip example from page one on a single charge (except when towing) " is outside that 95%.

Afterall I don't buy a Boeing to fly to EU or Asia.

As to what 200 miles is - it is a 60 kWh vehicle. I expect to be able to get one in 3 years.

I no longer need a BEVx - afterall a regular PHEV is more efficient than BEVx in extended range mode and won't suck at freeway driving like i3 does.

Click to expand...

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.

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).

epirali said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.