Showing posts with label PHEV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PHEV. Show all posts

EV Charger Sharing Made Easy

EV Charging Hangers are a simple, low-cost solution to a nagging problem for some electric vehicle owners
As recent as six years ago, there were probably less than 3,000 highway-capable electric cars on public roads in the US. Since 2010, over 300,000 fully electric and plug in hybrid electric vehicles have been bought or leased in America.

During that time, the number of public charging stations has increased dramatically and we now have tens of thousands of public charging stations across the country. It's a good start, but there is a long way to go before there are enough charging locations to service the ever-growing electric vehicle market. On average, each month more than 10,000 plug in electric vehicles are sold, increasing the disparity between plug in vehicles, and public charging locations.

It's good news that the vast majority of EVs don't need to use public charging, at least regularly. However for those that do, finding an available and working public charging station can sometimes be a challenge. Then there are the times when you pull up to a charging station in desperate need of a charge, only to find that there is a car already plugged in. You immediately start wondering, "Does that car REALLY need to charge like I do, or are they just opportunity charging to top off the battery?" The urge is there to just unplug the other car and plug yours in, especially when that other car is a PHEV. If it's a PHEV, it really doesn't need to charge, since it can operate just fine on gas. But they were there first, and it's not right to unplug (or even touch) another vehicle without permission, even if they don't "need" the juice like you might.

They say necessity is the mother of invention, and recognizing this to be an issue led some electric vehicle owners to begin employing "charger sharing" techniques. This actually dates back to the old GM EV-1 days in California. Owners would leave notes on their dashboard stating a time when it was OK to unplug their car. Others would simply write, "I'm opportunity charging; unplug me if you need to." For the most part this worked pretty well, but that was when there were a few hundred electric cars to service and it was easier to self-police with such a small number of cars on the road. Now, with hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles it's more complicated, and many EV owners haven't even thought of the concept of charger sharing.

One electric vehicle owner, Jack Brown, has indeed thought about this, quite a lot in fact. Jack came up with the idea of connector hangers which an EV owner could use to let others know whether or not they can unplug their vehicle and share the charger. After a few revisions, a two sided hanger was developed which the owner hangs on the J1772 connector and offers instructions on whether or not another EV owner can unplug their car if they need to. One side states "OK TO UNPLUG" with instructions on when it's OK, and the other side says "DO NOT UNPLUG." On the "OK TO UNPLUG" side, you can write the time when your car will be charged enough to allow someone else to use the EVSE, and even leave your phone number so the other person can text or call you if necessary. Jack sells them through his site TakeChargeAndGo.com. You can buy them individually or in a ten pack. They are reusable with dry erase markers which just wipe off clean.

From Take Charge and Go Website:

Electric vehicles are becoming more popular and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find an available public EV charging space. Good etiquette by the user community is vital as the infrastructure catches up with demand.

Take Charge and Go EV Charging Hangers are an excellent way to indicate to other Electric Vehicle drivers know how long you will be charging and to share proper etiquette. Simply plug your car in with the hanger on the charging port or dashboard of your car and let others know when you can share the spot.

The charging hanger is made from durable 120# recycled Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified recycled paper card stock

  • The hangers are printed on both sides to indicate whether you are necessity charging (RED – DO NOT UNPLUG) or opportunity charging (GREEN – OK TO UNPLUG)
  • The color coding makes it easy for fellow EV drivers to tell if they can share the plug

  • A keyhole cutout provides a sufficient fit for most J-1772 charging handles. A slip-on cutline is provided for easier installation and removal while charging

  • The red DO NOT UNPLUG side has space to write what time you should be done charging with a dry erase marker or a post it note

  • Both sides have a space to leave contact information and provides tips for good etiquette
    • Never park in a charging space if you are not charging
    • When charging in public, limit your charge, don’t charge to your limit. Move on so others have the opportunity to to charge
    • Never unplug another car without permission

  • A QR code and website link are provided for additional information about public EV charging and different car brands charging indicators

  • Hangers are UV coated provide protection from the elements and work well with permanent and dry erase markers and post-it notes to leave information

  • Designed and Made in the U.S.A.
The hangers are currently available in a ten pack for $19.99
If purchased individually they currently cost $2.49, and a ten pack is $19.99. They seem to be made well with a durable coating. I believe they will last a long time even when used in the rain and snow. However there is still one issue with charger sharing. Some new electric cars have chargeports that lock the connector to the vehicle while charging, preventing charger sharing. I do understand the reasoning for this, but I believe it's a flawed feature if the owner cannot override it when they choose to. There should be a setting in the car that allows the owner to unlock the connector from the car while charging if they wish to. This is a perfect example of OEMs not listening to the customer. I totally understand why an engineering team would have never even thought of charger sharing, so it's easy to understand why some EVs don't allow connector unlock. However it's time the OEMs start listening to the EV community and employ the features unique to electric vehicles that improve the EV ownership experience.

My i3 is one of those cars that doesn't allow the connector to be removed unless the doors are unlocked. However BMW has listened to their customers, and will soon be rolling out an update that will unlock the connector once the charging session is complete. This is good, but it's really only halfway to the proper solution in my opinion. I want manual control of whether my connector is locked to the car. It should be a setting in iDrive with a box that I check or uncheck if I want the connector locked to the car or not. They can even make the default setting locked if they are concerned someone will forget they unlocked it one day and end up with an uncharged car because someone unplugged them without permission. Unlock after charging is complete is a step in the right direction, but I'll continue to lobby BMW to finish the job and offer owners full control over their chargeport.

SF Bay to Tahoe in an i3 REx: What was learned?

IMG_20141018_151716-M.jpg
Donner Summit is the highest point along Interstate 80 in California at 7,228 feet elevation.
Last week we heard from i3 REx owner John Higham in a post he wrote which detailed his thoughts on the i3's range extender restrictions for the North American market. John certainly didn't mince words and offered his reasoning why he believes the range extender on the i3 should have its artificial restrictions (which are in place to satisfy CARB), relaxed a bit. John also promised to do a road trip which would take him from the San Francisco Bay area up to the 7,228ft Donner Summit in Lake Tahoe and report on the range extender's performance under these strenuous conditions. Below are his findings.

SF Bay to Tahoe by the Numbers, Part 2

Nailed it.  Well, nearly.

In Part 1 of this post about all things REx, I declared that a US spec BMW i3 REx could not make the popular weekend getaway of Lake Tahoe from the San Francisco Bay area without being speed limited within 15 miles of Sacramento. How speed limited depended on the slope of the road as you climbed east into the mountains, but top speed would range from 40 to 55 MPH. The alternative was to fully charge in Sacramento before any significant climbing begins and then again in Colfax about halfway up the hill. This makes such a drive impractical.

I also declared that a European spec’d i3 would make it no problem, so long as one kept the diminutive 1.9 gallon tank filled and the feature known as “Hold Mode” engaged. In fact, European cars have made similar drives into the Alps.

The basis of these declarations is simple physics. In Part 2 we test the physics from Part 1.Twice. First with a U.S. spec BMW i3 REx and then with a European spec i3 REx.

OK, I lied. I don't have a European spec i3. But I do have a US spec i3 that has been modified to behave like its schnitzel eating cousin.
I drive the BMW i3 from my home in Mountain View, California to Donner Memorial Park in Truckee.  The state park is placed at one of the sites where the ill-fated Donner Party settled for the winter in 1846.  The snow that winter was as high as the memorial behind the i3.


A Quick Summary of Part 1

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a class of car called the Battery extended range Electric Vehicle (BEVx). Some say the BEVx was never intended to be a car with mass appeal that can be driven like any ICE-mobile.  But I ask, why not? Actually, what I usually say is “Why the hell not!” while shouting and pounding the table with my fist. I digress.
I believe that the BEVx class of cars represents the bridge from plain ol' Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars to pure electric that will finally allow the public to embrace EVs without looking back. Except.

There is one teensy exception and it is what engineers call a "corner case." In this situation the “corner case” refers to those people who require a car to maintain freeway speeds over sustained elevation gains. That’s what this post is all about -- to test how big that corner case actually is.

California's San Francisco Bay Area lies at sea level and the drive east to Lake Tahoe follows the Sacramento river, never gaining significant altitude for about 50 to 100 miles, depending on one's starting location. Continuing east past the capital of Sacramento begins what is at first a gentle climb into Gold Country. Assuming the route is along I-80, the slope increases significantly past Gold Country until Donner Summit (elevation 7,228 feet) is reached 95 miles east of Sacramento.

The i3's APU is sized such that it can maintain freeway speeds, but not to maintain freeway speeds and simultaneously gain significant altitude.  It’s simply not possible to drive from the SF Bay Area to Tahoe in a reasonable amount of time with the US spec’d i3. Of course if you have the patience to charge every 60 to 80 miles, you can drive your i3 from the Bay Area to Tahoe or anywhere else for that matter. But that is impractical, even with with so-called fast chargers.

Since this post comes in two parts, and the test drive to Tahoe also comes in two parts, potential for confusion exists when referring to them.  Let’s dispatch any confusion and call the first test The Apple Pie Test and the second test The Lederhosen Test.

The purpose of these tests isn’t to prove you can drive an i3 to Tahoe by taking logical opportunities to charge. You can. It’s been done. The purpose is to prove the assertions made in Part 1. First, that the US spec’d i3 REx is hobbled as compared to its European counterpart and second (and more importantly) that an i3 REx is more than a great EV; it has potential to be the only car you need.

Oh yeah. No math in this post. I promise.


The Apple Pie Test

The Apple Pie Test is simple: try to “REx it” to Tahoe and see how far you get. (Oh, I’ve made REx a verb, but the Oxford dictionary hasn't caught up yet.) Since this is my test, I get to make up the rules. The rule is simply to take a BMW i3 as CARB intended it to be delivered to the public and drive it along I-80 until the car becomes speed limited, then compare the observed results with the predicted results from Part 1.

To do this test I left the Benicia, California, CCS fast-charger with 90% SOC and a predicted range of 60 miles.  The drive toward the Tahoe region is essentially flat for about 63 miles along I-80, then the road climbs into the Sierra Nevada mountains. I planned this section of the drive to be all electric until such time I hit the foothills. The goal was to set the cruise control to the posted speed limit (65 MPH) and simply keep driving powered by the REx until the car became speed limited.

In Part 1 I calculated that the car would become speed limited at about 725 feet elevation gain and by using the elevation profile in Google Earth, I estimated that would occur about 12 miles east of Sacramento.

The actual drive didn’t work out exactly like that, but close enough for the rough assumptions that were made. At first the speed limitation was subtle. I started to suspect the car was speed limited at around 800 feet elevation (750 gained), “flooring it" to coerce an increase from 65 MPH with the cruise control set, I achieved about 67 or 68 but no more. But by 950 feet elevation gain the effect was no longer subtle. Not only could I no longer keep pace with traffic, but was feeling very vulnerable and was searching for an exit in earnest. On some of the steeper portions of that section I was under 55 MPH indicated with traffic whizzing past at 70 MPH and above.
IMG_20141018_113048-M.jpg
The BMW i3 was clearly speed limited on this section of road after leaving Sacramento powered solely on the REx

IMG_20141018_113054-M.jpg
This photo was snapped moments after the previous photo

Anyone who has owned a BMW for very long can tell you that the speedometers are optimistic by at least 5%, if not 7%. So, that 58 MPH in the photo is closer to an actual speed of 55 MPH.  In Part 1 of this post I made a table of predicted top speed as a function of the grade of the road. Using the GPS coordinates of the road and Google Earth, I found the grade of the road at the precise point is 3%; the table from Part 1 predicts a top speed of 60 MPH on a 3% grade; close, but some refinement of that table is in order.

In summary, the Apple Pie Test demonstrated that all that analysis, the calculations, graphs and so forth from Part 1 were within the margin of error that could be expected for the rough assumptions that were made.  

More importantly, It proves that you can’t just REx it to Lake Tahoe in an i3. Luckily, there is a CCS charger in Sacramento, so moments after the above photos were taken I turned around and headed straight for it. With the miracle of regeneration the i3 got its SOC back up to a respectable level and I REx’d it all the way back to that CCS charger with no issues.


Hold Mode and Coding

The Lederhosen Test requires the use of a feature known as “Hold Mode”, which is on all Euro-spec i3 equipped with the REx; perhaps even all such cars destined for anywhere in the world outside of North America. What Hold Mode does is engage the REx (or more specifically in CARB-speak the APU) to maintain the battery State of Charge (SOC). Sounds a bit boring and perhaps it is.

The fact of the matter is, US spec’d cars have Hold Mode; the car’s onboard intelligence switches it on automatically when the battery SOC reaches 6.5%. The European version of the car also will switch on Hold Mode automatically when the battery SOC reaches 6.5%, but the European version also allows the driver to manually engage Hold Mode whenever the battery SOC is 75% or less.

The difference in the US spec’d car and its European counterpart is perhaps subtle, but as we shall see, the difference means everything if you require a car to maintain freeways speeds and gain significant elevation simultaneously.

What is important here is to understand that the US-spec cars do in fact have the European-spec Hold Mode programmed into the car.  The menu option that allows the driver to engage Hold Mode manually is simply hidden from the i3’s iDrive menu. For someone skilled in the seedy underbelly of the BMW tuner world known as “coding,” enabling this hidden feature in the iDrive menu is trivial.  To be clear, this practice is most likely frowned upon by both BMW NA and CARB.

To satisfy scientific curiosity, I “coded” my i3 to enable Hold Mode, Euro-style. On to the Lederhosen Test!    (click through this link to read about how to code your i3: Code your i3)


The Lederhosen Test

As noted in the last paragraph of the Apple Pie Test, as soon as I became speed-limited near Auburn, I turned around and returned to Sacramento and specifically to the CCS fast charger there. After plugging in and after i3’s SOC had reached 90%, I once again set out along the same route toward my final destination in Truckee, California, near Lake Tahoe. Hold Mode is only available if the SOC is 75% or less, so after leaving the CCS charger I drove the first 12 or 13 miles all electric.


IMG_20141018_122036-M.jpg
The CCS fast-charger in Sacramento in Sacramento is at an elevation of 50 feet.

The only difference in the two drives was the SOC at the bottom of the hill and manually engaging Hold Mode. This simply means the REx was used in the Apple Pie Test to “hold” a 6.5% SOC but on the Lederhosen Test, it was used to “hold” a 75% SOC.
IMG_20141018_131052-M.jpg
Engaging Hold Mode at 75%.  Note there are 88 miles to my destination, with 39 miles of all-electric range available.  

In Part 1 of this post I calculated that by engaging Hold Mode at 75% SOC the i3 should be able to climb essentially any mountain pass in North America, so long as one keeps the gas tank filled. What isn’t visible in the photo above is that Donner Pass, a 7,228 foot climb, is between me and my destination; it is time to put my hypothesis from Part 1 to the test.

With Hold Mode engaged, as one drives the i3 the REx keeps the battery SOC constant at the level set.  If driving conditions are such that the REx (due to its limited power output) cannot keep the battery SOC maintained, then energy from the battery makes up the difference and the battery SOC falls commensurately.

Soon after leaving the CCS charger in Sacramento and engaging Hold Mode at 75% SOC I found myself once again in Auburn near where I had turned around just 90 minutes earlier during the Apple Pie Test.  It was time for a lunch stop.

IMG_20141018_140702-M.jpg
As expected the battery SOC falls as elevation is gained
The photo above was taken at my lunch stop in Auburn. Note that the SOC has fallen 4% to 71% at 1210 feet elevation (1160 feet of gain).  If I had stopped the car and let the REx run sufficiently long, the SOC would have returned to 75%. But that would have both taken time I didn’t want to spend and defeated the purpose of the Lederhosen Test. So, after a quick bite to eat I got back in the car and re-engaged Hold Mode at 71% SOC.

Leaving Auburn, I resumed toward my destination of Donner Memorial State Park 65 miles away in Truckee, California. The only thing between me and my destination was Donner Pass at 7228 feet, one more stop for gasoline, and the potential to run out of battery. But I had done my homework and was confident that I had plenty of energy left in the battery to complete my drive.

It was the perfect day for such a drive; the sky was a beautiful blue, the temperature was in the mid 70’s, the traffic light and SiriusXM’s Classic Vinyl accompanied me. During the drive I took pictures of the i3’s displays every 1,000 feet of elevation gain, but suffice it to say that the battery SOC slowly dropped in an expected and predictable fashion as I glided up the mountain's slope. After 45 minutes or so I once again stopped to top off the fuel tank.

IMG_20141018_144840-M.jpg
The i3’s other “fast charge” port.  I don’t like to use this method of adding energy, but sometimes a guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do.

IMG_20141018_145546-M.jpg
The battery SOC has fallen from 75% to 54% after climbing 5300 feet.

After refueling, Donner Summit was less than 30 minutes away. I found myself so absorbed in monitoring the progress of the battery SOC prediction that I nearly blew past the sign marking the summit! 
IMG_20141018_152622-M.jpg
The i3, with Hold Mode engaged, used a mere 31% (75% at the bottom of the hill less 44% at the summit) of its SOC to gain nearly 7,200 feet of elevation.  In simple terms, one can think of it as if the REx’s power output is used to propel the car forward, the battery’s power output is used to climb the hill.

By using less than a third of its battery to gain those 7,228 feet, the i3 REx is obviously capable of much more. In Part 1 I asserted that the i3 with the European-style Hold Mode was probably capable of summiting any road in North America. After making the drive over the Sierra Nevada’s I-80, I believe that point has been verified.


Summary

The i3 REx with the European-style Hold Mode is more than capable of conquering Donner Summit simply by engaging the feature at the beginning of the climb and keeping the tank filled.  The US spec i3 REx is not.  But the implications are far greater than this.

The entire thesis of this post and the previous one is much larger in scope than “can BMW’s i3 make the drive to Lake Tahoe.” The thesis is much more than the car or the corporation. It’s about an idea.  A brilliant idea.

It’s about a transitional electric vehicle that the public can embrace without looking back, without asterisks and without range anxiety. The embodiment of that transitional electric vehicle is the BEVx class; to date only one car is made to that standard. It’s a brilliant piece of engineering.  Yet that brilliant piece of engineering is emasculated by regulations imposed by a governing body that should be championing it.

I’m surprised that Sir Isaac Newton hasn’t leapt from his grave and set his hair on fire.

The use case I have been passionately trying to demonstrate, that the i3 is fully capable of, may be an inconsequential corner case for the majority of owners worldwide.  But it is a legitimate use case and one that the many buyers consider. And people buy to the corner case, especially if it is their only means of transportation.

Until such time that adding energy to an EV takes as much thought and effort as adding energy to an ICE-mobile, technologies like the BEVx are going to be required to get the public to embrace electric mobility.

If removing the restriction on the operation of the APU is not made, the genius of the BEVx classification will never bear fruit.  That’s because even though the average driver does less than 40 miles a day, they also want the flexibility to take their car wherever they want, whenever they want. For this reason, PHEVs are about as “electric” as the general public is willing to go.

Once the current limitation of the APU software managing the SOC is understood by the public, the public will eschew the BEVx classification for PHEVs, such as a Volt. While that may be a better choice for the environment than, say, a Camry, the Volt driver will not be able to drive as much on electricity as if he bought a BEVx, such as an i3.

That’s why I’m writing; to beg CARB to Unleash the REx. It’s been said that the PHEV is the gateway drug to a pure BEV. If that is so, the BEVx has the potential to be crack -- instantly addictive. Make it so.


Facts about my trip from Mtn. View -> Truckee -> Mtn. View
Left home with 100% SOC
528.2 miles round trip
246 miles on REx
6.6 gallons of gas purchased
Ended trip with about ½ gallon more gas in the tank then when I left
4.1 mi/kWh
4 CCS charging sessions totaling 62.8 kWh
0 Level 2 charging sessions
Arrived home on the REx (6.5% SOC)

Guest Post: Efficiency or Range? You Can’t Have Both.

The i3 is the most efficient production car available today

Every now and then I have a reader send me an article they wrote and ask if I'd like to post it here. Usually it's not exactly what I'm looking for and politely explain why I won't be posting it and thank them for sending it nonetheless.  Occasionally I'll get something interesting though, like the post below which was sent to me by Robert Kasper. I think it's particularly timely since just last week I posted the Tesla/BMW comparison piece and I think this is an interesting follow up to it.  I hope you enjoy:                    

  Efficiency or Range?  You Can’t Have Both.

…But Advanced Technology Can Help.

By Rob Kasper

In the world of electric vehicles, whether Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) or Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), there is a clear trade off between range and efficiency.  For a given technology, efficiency suffers as range increases due to the weight of not only additional battery capacity, but the increased structure and volume to haul that capacity around.  Now that there are a significant number of plug-in vehicles being manufactured, and a recognized standard to test them, we can identify trends.  Consider Table 1 and Figure 1, a plot of efficiency (as measured in EPA MPGe) vs. range in miles for 2014 plug-in electric vehicles measured by the EPA.  They are grouped into Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and further identified as either conventional or advanced technology design and construction.  Conventional technology is generally characterized by a manufacturer’s use of an existing gasoline powered platform modified for battery electric drive, steel frame construction and cladding, and standard battery technology.  Advanced technology is generally characterized by a clean sheet, purpose built EV design, extensive use of aluminum or aluminum plus Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) for weight savings, higher energy density lithium ion battery packs, with the bonus of performance equivalent to or exceeding the best of conventional technology plug-in vehicles.

Figure 1: Efficiency vs. Range

Table 1: EPA Electric Range and MPGe

Beyond the obvious observation that the price of greater range is lower efficiency within a given technology, it is important to note the significance of advancing technology.  The ground-up EV design, significantly lighter weight construction, and advanced battery technology of the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S push the blue trend line significantly up and to the right of conventional BEVs’ green trend line.  As significant is the single data point (in purple) representing the only advanced technology PHEV currently available – The BMW i3 REx.  Not only is it capable of greater efficiency and far more range than any conventional PHEV (the red trend line), it is more efficient than all but two conventional BEVs, with only slightly less range than all but the most inefficient conventional BEVs.

It is this outlier of a data point, the BMW i3 REx that might best help illustrate why a smart means of increasing the range of an EV may not necessarily be to add more battery capacity.   Battery energy is clean and well suited for powering vehicles for relatively short-range transportation but due to its weight and lengthy charge times, inefficient and inconvenient for long distances.   On the other hand, the benefits of energy density and convenience make gasoline/diesel energy better suited for longer range transportation with the trade-off being greater well to wheel emissions in many parts of the world.  In the case of the BMW i3 REx, each mile of range requires either 0.15 pounds of gasoline, or 5.7 pounds of battery capacity.  At 37 times the mass specific energy density of battery power, very little gasoline is required to extend range for a given tank size, and that tank can be replenished in minutes nearly anywhere in the well developed fossil fuel infrastructure that currently exists worldwide.  This capability requires a 265 pound increase in the weight3 of the vehicle for the REx engine and associated systems, which imposes a 6% decrease in efficiency, but once set, that efficiency does not appreciably decrease as more energy in the form of gasoline is added to increase range.  Increasing battery capacity cannot increase range as efficiently, as not only must the weight of the battery increase by 37 times the weight of gasoline per mile in the first increment, but by the weight of increased structure and volume, as well as even greater battery capacity to offset the reduction in efficiency resulting from the weight increase.  There comes a point where the sacrifice in efficiency may no longer be worth the additional range to be gained.
See figure 2:

Figure 2: EV Energy Storage (and Generation) Weight vs Range for Advanced Technology EVs



1- EPA testing protocol does not account for approximately 4 miles of range remaining after REx fuel exhaustion when publishing a 72 mile battery powered electric range before REx activation, but does account for it in the total range calculation of 150 miles:  72 electric miles + 1.9 gal x 39 mpg + 4 electric miles = 150 EPA range (76 electric + 74 gasoline).  76 miles of range is also the result of dividing the EPA measured total i3 wall to wheel consumption of 22.0 kWh by the i3 REx EPA measured consumption rate of 0.288 kWh/mile.  This value is further corroborated by the CARB BEVx designation awarded to the i3 REx which requires the electric range not only be at least 75 miles, but that it must exceed the gasoline range, neither of which would be possible without accounting for the ~4 miles of range remaining after REx fuel exhaustion.

2- The EPA’s 95 MPGe rating of the Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid includes 0.2 gallons of gasoline operation plus 29 kWh of electric operation per 100 miles.  Subtracting the 10 mile of gasoline operation contribution to the total (0.2 gal X 50 mpg) yields 29 kWh per 90 miles, or 32.2 kWh per 100 miles, which results in 105 MPGe for electric only operation. (MPGe = 33,705 divided by watt hours per mile.)

3- While EPA rated at 87 miles of range in its base form, purchasers of the Mercedes-Benz B-Class can choose to pay an additional $600 for the Range Package, which makes an additional 17 miles of range available.  There is no difference in total battery capacity between the two configurations, only the percentage of SOC made available to the driver.

4- The 8 BMW battery pack modules weigh 55 lbs. each, for a total of 440 lbs.  Reference page 17 of the BMW i3 Service Managers Workshop Participant Guide at http://darrenortiz.com/website_pdfs/BMWi3PG.pdf.

5- 265 lbs for the REx engine and all associated equipment is the difference in weight between the i3 BEV and i3 REx as published on BMW’s spec pages:  http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/i3/BMWi3/Features_and_Specs/BMWi3Specifications.aspx
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/i3/BMWi3RangeExtender/Features_and_Specs/BMWi3RangeExtenderSpecifications.aspx.  Adding the 440 lb. battery weight makes the total energy production and storage weight at 76 mile of range 705 lbs.  This increases by 11.4 lbs. of gasoline for every 74 miles driven beyond 76.

6- Widely quoted in other sources, Car and Driver claims the Telsa Model S 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1323 lbs: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-tesla-model-s-test-review.  This is exactly 600 kg, making it appear to be an estimate, but it is the only number we have to work with, as Tesla does not publish the spec.

7- Weight of the 60 kWh Tesla Model S battery pack is estimated from the 85 kWh figure to be 60/85 X 1323 lbs. = 934 lbs.

The Silence of The Cars

Well Clarice, can you still hear the sounds of the engine screaming in your dreams?
There has been a lot of discussion about adding artificial noise to electric cars to serve as pedestrian alerts. I've been driving electric for over four years now and have driven over 120,000 miles, and I say they are simply not necessary. However as much as I wish it were true, I know the discussion doesn't begin and end with my opinion on this. Personally I'm all in favor for a backup beeper, which I actually think should be on all cars regardless of the type of fuel they use. But artificial noise when the vehicle is moving forward is silly and simply unnecessary. The quietness of the EV is something to celebrate, not shun.

Electric cars are quieter than gas cars, but only while driving at very low speeds (like under 10 mph) is there much of a difference. At speeds higher than that you can hear the tires on the pavement and the whine of the electric motor. Automakers are spending tons of money to make their gas cars quieter, and most cars - especially premium brands are extraordinarily quiet unless they are under heavy acceleration. In situations where pedestrians are most likely to have an issue, say crossing the street, cars are usually rolling along at lower speeds, coasting much of the time and much of the noise you hear anyway is the tire noise on the pavement. Plus, I think a bigger issue here is simply getting people to pay attention. Get off the cell phone, pull the Earbuds out and pay attention when you are crossing the street! And drivers need to stop texting and just drive the car. Look it's your responsibility not to run people over, it's not their responsibility to hear you coming and jump out of the way just so you can send "lol" to your bff! This is a sore subject for me because I was hit while crossing the street by a person texting three years ago and even needed surgery. I heard the car coming (a gas car!) just before it hit me and couldn't manage to get out of the way in time anyway.

Unfortunately our opinions may not eventually matter because our government may very well mandate a solution to a problem we don't have. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed a new rule requiring hybrid and electric cars to make sounds to alert pedestrians. Even though our friends across the pond have actually done studies and come to the conclusion that these artificial noises are not necessary. Still, We'll likely rush to legislate something we don't have actual data on. In the UK, a study commissioned by the Department for Transport came up with these findings: "At low speeds of 7-8 kmh (5mph) electric cars were just one decibel quieter than petrol cars. When speeds were increased to more than 20 kmh (12mph), the noise levels were "similar", with tyre noise dominating. "There does not appear to be any significant difference in the acoustic nature of [internal combustion engine] vehicles and [electric and hybrid] vehicles, and as such nothing suggests a pedestrian would clearly be able to differentiate between vehicle types,"

Anyway as I said I'm just one opinion. I want to know your opinion on this issue. Automakers are struggling with this. They are conflicted because they aren't clear exactly what the consumer wants and they are also not sure themselves if it is actually needed. I know because I've talked with people from various OEM's about this very subject and they have asked me what I think about it. Some believe that while hardened EV supporters like me don't think it's necessary, that people new to electric vehicles may believe it is. That may be true in fact. So I'm putting up a poll here and asking people to vote how they would like to see their EV deal with this issue. Please vote, I can assure you this blog is monitored by every major OEM, and nearly on a daily basis. You never know who's listening. The poll is at the top of the right sidebar. Let your opinion be heard! By the way, all cars already have a pedestrian alert, it's called a horn!

How CARB May Make The i3's Range Extender Less Attractive

The range extender engine for the i3 is seen here to the left of the electric motor

According to the UK price list for the i3 the range extender will automatically come on when the state of charge falls to 18%. I've been guessing that will happen at about 20% so I was pretty close. It will then attempt to maintain the battery SOC at 18%, while allowing the car to continue to drive along relatively uninhibited. The only time there will be a problem is if your driving is demanding a high level of energy output for a prolonged period of time.

For instance, driving along at 60 mph on a flat surface you may only need 10 or 11 kW's to sustain the charge because that's about all you'll be consuming. That's no problem for the REx because it can provide up to 25kW's of constant supply. However if you need to drive up a steep grade at highway speeds for 10 continuous miles or so you may have a problem because the car will likely draw more than 25kW's under these strenuous conditions. The 18% buffer combined with the REx pumping out it's maximum output will allow the drive to continue for quite some time, but after a while of using more energy then it is capable of replacing, it will eventually need to reduce power output. What happens then is unclear but I would imagine the car would slow down to a speed it can maintain power for. Again, this should not happen on flat land, as the energy consumption should be able to be replace by the REx. It will also have plenty of power for most hills and bursts of speed when needed. I'm talking about long, extended drives up steep inclines that happen at the end of your journey after you've already depleated the battery and the range extender has come on. Personally I have a situation where this could come into play myself. My in laws live in Vermont and the last 10 to 15 miles to their house is mostly uphill. I'd already have the range extender on by the time I get to this final leg of the journey so I'm curious if I'll have a problem making it. I could stop along the way and charge for a while if necessary but I'd prefer just driving nonstop. After all, that's why I'd get the range extender; so I don't have to stop to charge along the way of a trip.

So what can be done to alleviate this? The Chevy Volt has a "Hold Mode" that the driver can initiate at any time. This manually turns on the range extender without waiting for it to automatically turn on when the battery is depleted and holds the battery state of charge at the level it was when you turned it on. Sounds like a great idea, so is BMW going to do the same thing? Yes, and maybe no. If you look at page 8 of the UK price list that I provided the link to above, you'll see it says: "Manually activated when the vehicle is below 80%". Brilliant! So if you buy an i3 in the UK, you can turn on the range extender once the state of charge drops below 80%. Therefore if you know you'll be driving up a long, steep hill or mountain at the end of your journey, you can turn on the range extender and "hold" the charge so when you arrive at the mountain you'll have plenty of charge to complete the journey. Perfect, so US customers will get this feature also, right? Unfortunately, maybe not.

CARB's restrictions may hinder the REx
California is the #1 market for electric vehicles in the US and one of the reasons they sell so well there is zero emission vehicles are allowed carpool lane access regardless of the amount of passengers. This is a highly sought after perk in California and cars that qualify for it usually sell very well. The all electric i3 will definitely qualify, but the under the new more strict rules for PHEV's, an EV with a range extender will only qualify for the valuable HOV access sticker if it operates this way: "engine operation cannot occur until the battery charge has been depleted to the charge-sustaining lower limit". So that means the range extender cannot be manually turned on at 80% and still qualify for HOV access in California.

It's clear to me BMW will make the i3 conform with CARB's rules so it will have HOV access is California, but will they do this to all the US cars, or just for the ones shipped to California? I don't have the answer. I tried to get clarity on this at the i3 Premier but nobody wanted to confirm it one way or the other. Hopefully that means a decision hasn't been made on this yet and there is hope for the rest of us. If so and the powers to be at BMW find their way to read this blog post, please consider offering the same ability to manually turn on the REx for US customers outside of California. The vast majority of customers in the US don't need carpool access, why should they have their range extender neutered so people in California can have it? This is a simple software change. It's available in the UK and probably for the rest of Europe so it's not like it will cost BMW anything to develop. Let's hope BMW does the right thing and makes this feature available to US customers outside of California. It really makes the range extender a more useful asset, this shouldn't be a hard decision to make.