Talk:Plug-in hybrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Plug-in hybrid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2007.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: 2005-2007


Contents

[edit] Aptera

I deleted the mention of Aptera Motors in the intro, because it was not mentioned in the body of the article as WP:LEAD requires, and the announcement is not really what most readers would think of as a production consumer automobile: it's pre-orders only, for a three-wheeler, two-seater, and there is no expected availability date.

However, I think the Aptera announcement should be mentioned in the history section (and the history sub-article.) I might not have time to get to that right now; I just don't want Aptera fans to think I was deleting and running. J T Price (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It is not for us to judge what readers think: Aptera themselves claim it is a plug-in hybrid (the title of the article), which is good enough for me. It also appears to have an earlier production date (2008) than the Fisker. I'll add it back in along with refs and more detail in the body of the article. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFS Trinity

Jan 13 2008 autoshow press release - see XH-150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.208.161 (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I added text about this product, that uses ultracapacitors to solve one of the biggers problems to mass-produce PHEV. Also this company makes flywheels to store electricity, that can be usesd in vehicles. --Mac (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I found a recent article about this. If you think it contains any info that ought to be added to the article, please add it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the recent article? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete carmaker list

The carmakers´ list and statements in the article is not complete The complete list include:

--Mac (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honda, Hyundai, and Nissan have no plans to make PHEVs (yet.) AFS Trinity, Audi, Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler, Venture Vehicles, Volkswagen, and Volvo have concepts or prototypes, but no plans to bring anything to market (yet.) Rocky Mountain Institute doesn't make cars (yet.) The only one of the rest that we don't have current information in the article is Visionary Vehicles (Malcolm Bricklin), but while he plans to go to market in 2010, he doesn't yet have a concept or a prototype, so it's not really the kind of production announcement that deserves to be outside the history section. J T Price (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

I notice an edit war in progress. Fbagatelleblack, please don't revert Zap post again, you're in breach of 3RR. Refer to me or another admin if Zap link posted without discussion again. Anon Zap person, you are also in breach. If you think can justify your posting, discuss it here. Otherwise note that Wikipedia does not accept commercial links and action such as page protection or blocking may be taken. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have pointed out the inappropriateness of some of my recent edits. Prior to receiving these warnings, I posted my concerns regarding this issue on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I shall withdraw myself from this issue until it is resolved by admins. With apologies, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chevy Volt: Thank Gods!

"the latest remake of the Volt features a slightly shorter hood, and there’s a bit more wedge to the overall stance." -- http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=1087

I was so sure they were going to make it a pathetic disfigured ... like the EV1. Dream Academy (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At least the EV1 had some aerodynamic merit - the Volt: little, and none on the wheels (by even 1957 standards) - Leonard G. (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BYD F3DM hatchback!

Someone please stub that redlink! I would but I'm at work.... Dream Academy (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Energy Effectiveness

It all sounds good but what you’re really doing is just substitution petroleum for coal and natural gas used to produce the electricity, well at least they’re much cheaper and we have a 200 year domestic supply of both. --J intela (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, also you have the facts that (1) those combustion-to-energy efficiencies are greater than what you can get from something under your hood, (2) we have a 3+ billion year supply of renewables, and (3) fewer asthmatics et al. are going to breathe the smoke. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff I saw in the news

I'm sure you wikipedians will enjoy these as much as I did:

  1. Assaulted Batteries Newsweek
  2. A Prius That Can Power Your House? USN&WR
  3. Chevy Volt May be Priced Under 30K USNR&R

That last one, kind of jumped out at me. 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Followup: meh.... 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantage: Cost, weight, and size of batteries (and also other components!)

I dont believe that this area is expanded upon enough. It is definitely the primary disadvantage of the PHEV compared to the standard HEV. In the PHEV, you have to have the same size ICE system as in the HEV because for long distance trips, it will still be the primary supplier of energy to the propulsion system. However, you have to have hundreds of added pounds in batteries and also a larger electric motor since the PHEV has to be able to travel at highway speeds on electric power alone. Not only are you lugging around all that added weight, but you have to pay for it upfront... with a PHEV you essentially have to be paying for 2 complete drivetrains since the ICE engine has to be able to power the car by itself on long trips while the whole point of a PHEV is that you can use the electric system only for normal daily driving.

There are (before I edit the article) three sentences of analysis about the cost, weight, and size disadvantage: the first simply explains what it is (and not very thoroughly), the second makes a clear logical fallacy in claiming that GM's idea that it might rent the batteries for the Chevy Volt somehow decreases the cost disadvantage (those batteries still have to be bought by someone, there is no free lunch). The third system notes that used PHEV batteries could be sold the electrical companies, more absurd speculation based on a single anecdote. I think I'm going to completely delete the latter 2 sentences.

I can see how you could rationalize lugging around the ICE system while you're within the electric-only range: the grid energy you're using is much cheaper than gasoline, so its not really even that expensive to carry it around. And that savings at the pump might even moves towards the additional cost of the batteries (probably not for a really long time). However, as your trip gets longer than the electric-only range, things start to go bad rapidly. If your battery is empty, you're lugging around hundreds of pounds of useless equipment. In this case, fuel efficiency should be decreased compared to a regular HEV.

I'm going to go ahead on some changes, please comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SHADOWBLUFF removed my edits and reinstalled the old section. He noted that I need sources for my claims, but doesn't understand that the previous information was irrelevant to the topic. Here is this section as it has been reverted:

"Disadvantages of plug-in hybrids include the additional cost, weight, and size of a larger battery pack. General Motors may allow buyers of its Chevy Volt electric car to rent the vehicle's battery, offsetting some cost.[85] Also used PHEV batteries can be sold to electric utilities to be employed at electrical substations.[49]"

1st sentence: fine, but ignores that the cost, weight, and size of the electric motor must also be higher to facilitate much higher electric-only performance (considering that under high loads, a hybrid would run both the ICE and electric motor, whereas a plug-in hybrid would be expected to handle high loads, at least up to a much higher point, with the electric motor alone). And then an obvious corollary to this (the addition of 200 to 400+ lbs of batteries and marginal electric motor size) with regards to vehicle design is that the cost, weight, and size of components like the chassis, brakes, and even the ICE would have to also be increased in order to maintain the status quo utility (for example especially with regards to interior space, braking performance, and acceleration performance.

2nd sentence: completely irrelevent and insulting to the intelligence of readers. Most importantly its because the sentence doesnt follow logic; if GM is renting the batteries, it makes them no cheaper, lighter, or smaller. Those batteries still have to be paid for, either by the consumer or GM. SHADOWBLUFF, please look up there ain't no such thing as a free lunch for a little lesson in logic and economics.

3rd sentence: also marginally relevent. First of all, just like the fact that you supposedly possibly will be able to rent batteries from GM, this does nothing to eleviate the extra size of weight of the batteries (and other components) that must be carried around in the car. Secondly, it only reduces the real cost of the batteries by the discounted value of the money you would receive in the future when you sold the batteries. Most importantly, its an extremely speculative statement with a single source that CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CLAIMING THAT EVERONE WILL BE ABLE TO RESELL THEIR USED BATTERIES.

Sentences 2 and 3 should be removed from the article no matter how you spin it. If anyone disagrees, please argue their merits in the comment section.

In the mean time, I will attempt to go back and source my facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree except with your suggested deletion. Let me try and you tell me whether you like my new version. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)