DrInnovation said:
AndyH said:
...<snip>
All right. That must be it then. Let's see if I have this straight. GM - though they were involved in J1711 and all of the other relevant specs - and did their best to steer them where they (GM) wanted them to go (while also working on killing/neutering CARB...) wasn't sophisticated enough to actually understand or plan for the systems they were guiding (moving target and all). But what they did do - while continuing to game CARB and steer the SAE process, they also ignored it all and created the car the way it SHOULD be.
That's a hell of a pot of koolaid, that's for sure.
Classic, fall back on insults and attempted humor when the facts don't support your position.
woo hoo - we at least agree that there's a problem with facts...
DrInnovation said:
GM's Volt R&D team was arguing, I believe correctly, that the current testing is highly biased in favor of (blended) PHEVs and that the pollution from an EREV, for exactly the same size battery, is overall far better. (Even though it does not test that way with current procedure)
They showed, using the 2001 NHTS Data Set that
http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mstrs/may2009/gm.pdf said:
For the same size battery pack
•The EREV displaces 60% of fuel versus 55% for the PHEV.
•The EREV displaces 36% of CO2 versus 33% for the PHEV.
In the regulation game, what GM thinks is really irrelevant. They're building cars, and they're required by law to build them to the standards that are in place when the car is 'born.' They can whine, rub their hands, and put-on a massive PR campaign if they choose, but in the end if the car doesn't meet the appropriate specs then ...well... they don't get the California rebate. Sorry. GM has been in the car business for a very long time. If they haven't figured this out by now...
DrInnovation said:
They were making this case to the EPA and CARB for years, while the standard were being developed. And still the current test procedures and weightings do not realistically account for the pure EV range of a EREV, even though for the same battery size that is overall better.
And that was the point of presenting the facts found in a peer-reviewed paper from the NAS. The point is that while some might think that a bigger battery is better, in some conditions it's clearly not. What's the goal? Put the electric efficiency of the Volt, the Leaf, and an Aptera side by side. Which is better? In this case, better is lowest energy use per distance traveled. The heavy, wide, less aerodynamic vehicle will require more energy per mile while the lightweight aerodynamic vehicle will require less energy per mile. Clearly, it's about efficiency, not battery size - as they all have different sized batteries. So - what does 'better' mean to you?
DrInnovation said:
Imagine an EREV with a bigger battery that say got upto 100m all electric range and (say 74m AER by the EPA), would it be more polluting than than a LEAF? Would it have to have a secondary air-injection to base CARB? What if it got 300m AER? With the current testing procedure it would not matter, CARB testing is almost all driven by the engine emissions after the first engine start and mostly waited after depletion of the battery.
Sorry - this is very wrong. Even the old J1711 tests simply run the car on a dyno thru UDDS or various other required 'driving courses'. The spec has ZERO to do with what the car is, how it's programmed or when the engine runs. The test routes were built based on how people drive cars (LA04/UDDS was based on a LA drive loop in actual traffic with actual terrain and actual traffic lights, by instrumenting cars and capturing commute date for example.)
And this really gets to the point of my annoyance with these Volt 'infomercials' -- "our car would have better numbers if we changed the test"? Really? Hey - I would have gotten an A in biology if I was able to write the tests, too! But the point of STANDARDIZED testing is that it cannot be manipulated by the companies being evaluated. And that's a GOOD THING!
DrInnovation said:
The current tests are best gamed by starting the engine early and on a regular basis (in part to to keep the Cat converter warm), even if in the long run that burns more fuel and generates more co2. The Volt R&D team did their homework and provided a cleaner design for average users. If you have data to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
Is GM all about the environment? No, like every car company, they are a business balancing cost/benefits. But in this case CARB/EPA/SAE does not really have a good model of what is better and I do believe GM was fighting the good fight (which happens to be better for their bottom line too). (Also note that the Volt R&D team and GM corporate are not the same, so Volt R&D could have even been arguing for the greenest possible, but lost that internal battle on cost.)
Sorry - this is misleading. They may be in different divisions and maybe different divisions don't see eye-to-eye - but they both work for the big "GM Corporate" - that's the nature of corporate structures. There's one big boss on the top floor of the Renaissance Center that signs the checks and he pays both R&D and the production folks. If you want to see a real-world example of what it was like inside GM when the did their last advanced vehicle, read Shnayerson's "
The Car That Could" - the author was given full access to GM when the EV-1 was being developed.
DrInnovation said:
CARB/EPA, and their NL supporters are too biased by the areas where they have long-term experience and what they can EASILY measure. They were, and some still are (like you) in denial that a EREV has some fundamental differences and that the testing is not really measuring what they can do.
This isn't about denial or bias or preconceptions on the EPA or INL side (nor on my side!) The purpose of the test is to provide a standardized result - a level playing field - so vehicles can be compared and FACTS can be published and acted upon. Again - put marketing spin and fan-boy stuff aside when digging thru the requirements or one will surely misinterpret much of what's happening!
DrInnovation said:
Anyone arguing that EREV is not a meaningful subcategory of PHEV's is in denial.
Is anyone actually doing this?! I know I'm not - I've been saying from the beginning (go look - it's early in this thread!) that this car is in fact a PHEV-40.
DrInnovation said:
Here is another example of the antiquated anti-environment rules that persist. CARB/EPA rules prohibited allowing the end-user to control the Auxiliary Power Unit (i.e. engine) E.g.
p52 on http://arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hevtest/040808pres.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; said:
Consumer Manual APU Activation:
» To ensure compliance with emissions standards in-use, manual activation of the APU by the consumer will be prohibited
GOOD! This is not antiquated! This is the 'law of the land' for today -- until it's not! We have to comply with the requirement that's on the books today even if we're lobbying for a new law. That's not picking on anyone, any car, any choice, or any company -- and unless one is involved in trying to change the law they don't like, posting on forums is little more than whining.
DrInnovation said:
This makes their CARB/EPA testing easier and ensures the worst-case is measured. Is it environmentally the better choice? NO!!!
Here's another place we disconnect! It's ABSOLUTELY better to measure worst case! Because 1. worst case happens more often that people think and 2. cars are at their peak of cleanliness when they're fresh from the production line - and they get worse from there! So really, this is not the "worst case" at all - retest the car in 10 years after it's been driven hard and put up wet.
DrInnovation said:
In reality when I drive to Denver, it would be much better to have a "HOLD" mode, as the Ampera does in the EU, so I can use CS mode on the highway ad then use CD mode in city-driving down town. City-driving gets lower milage and generates far more pollution, so the hold mode should be considered a green feature (which it is in the EU). But the CARB/EPA model said they cannot give us this "green feature". I hope/believe that after enough push-back that is finally changing.
I like hold mode as well as it helps clean city air. But don't kid yourself if you think this makes the car cleaner -- if the car has a 40 mile EV range and one drives 300 miles, they can burn it now, or burn it later, but they're still gonna burn it on the trip.
DrInnovation said:
Was GM corporate trying to steer the system and change CARB? Hopefully they were! As a company are balancing costs, and benefits. If they just caved in and said they would live the the existing rules they would pay in hardware costs that have lower benefits than trying to actually change the system to measure the right things.
Do you know how much this sounds like corporate BS?! Dear Heaven! Look - a business is in...business...to make money for their shareholders. Period. While there is an emerging group of socially and environmentally responsible businesses (both for profit and non profit) springing up all over, GM is not one of them! If anyone thinks otherwise, look at how they make their money. They make their money selling pickups and SUVs - vehicles for which they have successfully lobbied for regulatory loopholes for many years in order to maximize their profits. The result? They get rich selling trucks and SUVs because these vehicles have significantly less stringent emissions requirements and less stringent passenger safety requirements. These vehicles are tailored to improve GM's profits at the expense of the people buying them!
DrInnovation said:
J1711 does not defining weightings...
That's correct - and that is absolutely correct - because J1772 defines the process for TESTING and COLLECTING DATA - it's up to government regulators to set the weightings and limits!
DrInnovation said:
... and if the weightings were really based on weightings consistent with the NSTA 2001 data, including starts, short trip frequency, and such, the Volt would likely satisfy it. But if GM started saying they would conform to the current rules/standard, the system would take much longer to change to measure the right things (and it would make the car more expensive too). I'd say they gambled on that and lost.
Sorry - we're back to "GM would have a better showing if they got to write the test" - ain't gonna happen!
DrInnovation said:
I see you snipped the example I gave.
Dr Innovation said:
Putting it in context My wife's 8 average trips per week average (1 ~40miles, 3 5miles and 4 2miles) in her PZEV Outback have 8 cold starts and 8 warm starts over 60 miles. On the other hand my Volt with 10 trips of 15-20 miles (36m/day, 180miles total) is such I never use the ICE. The Outback is PZEV certified, the Volt is not and is currently considered "worse" by CARB because of how they choose to weight CS over CD.
I'd like to hear your answer for which is cleaner for normal usage, the CARB certified PZEV Outback or the uncertified 2011 Volt? And it would be useful to see how you reach that conclusion?
Dude - do you realize you presented two completely different drive scenarios and suggested that the Volt is better than the Outback because of it? Do you now realize that this makes ZERO sense? Garbage in- garbage out.
Which is better - my electric motorcycle with a 60 mile EV range that I drive Monday thru Friday for a total of 20 miles each day, or a pair of Arctic Cat snowmobiles pulling sleds full of 5-gallon Jerry cans in January in Northern Wisconsin?
Did you say the motorcycle? Sorry - that's wrong - because the motorcycle cannot cut new trails in 3 feet of fresh snowfall while carrying four people to a remote fishing site - and that was the mission profile when the vehicles were selected. What? What do you mean you assumed the test was about emissions?
See? A standard statement of the test and rules from the start can be useful.
I hope this helps you understand, DrInnovation, where the communication challenge lies...
Happy Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for most everyone here on My Nissan Leaf - and thankful that I'll not do a line by line in this thread any longer (among other things generally more important).
Peace out.
