If we are being pedantic about it, yes, you are right in your thoughts and certainly that is what the EV manufacturers want you to think via their marketing.

But the reality is I guess you could say 95% of the "benefit" of regenerative braking is the braking side of things (and so therefore similar to the non-EV equivalent).

There is, without argument, the remaining 5% "benefit" of the generation of electricity. But certainly in my own experience of driving EVs for both long road-trips and short journeys is that the electricity generation is largely manufacturer hype. Why ? Because basic physics dictates that you're playing a net-net zero-sum game ... i.e. what you "generate" you then loose when you next stop at the lights and accelerate again, or when you next overtake a car on the highway or, or, or .... so in the end you might end up with perhaps a 5–10% net gain if you're lucky which isn't really all that much to sing and dance about.

You indicate that the generative impact seems trivial, but this is not the case for me. In my PHEV, I get an additional mile of range when I brake regeneratively getting off the freeway. This is non-trivial in a vehicle that only offers about 12 miles of EV range. It's one of the reasons that my average MPG hovers between 90 and 100.

It's not pedantry; you're just taking two roughly analogous things and acting like they have no differences. It IS relevant that EVs call it "regenerative braking" because it does "magically recharge the battery".

> that is what the EV manufacturers want you to think via their marketing.

And yet we're in a thread for an article from the U.S. Department of Energy, not a car manufacturer.

> Because basic physics dictates that you're playing a net-net zero-sum game ... i.e. what you "generate" you then loose when you next stop at the lights and accelerate again

You're missing the point entirely. The point of regenerative braking isn't that it's more efficient than maintaining a constant speed the whole time. It's that it reclaims energy when you would have to stop anyway, traditionally with the brake. i.e. city-driving when you hit stop lights.

A 5-10% net gain is an incredible benefit; I don't know why you're downplaying it. If I could make a 10% improvement to my fuel economy solely by coming to a gentle stop (which I already do anyway) it would be amazing.

No I'm not. I retain my argument that it is a zero-sum game.

The manufacturers would have you believe it's a one-way gain and you can magically recharge to 80% again through regenerative braking, but in the end it almost entirely nets out. So a lot of it is marketing fluff.

That's the point.

> If I could make a 10% improvement to my fuel economy solely by coming to a gentle stop (which I already do anyway) it would be amazing.

For all you know, you probably do.

Its just that your ICE doesn't have some fancy display pumping out the numbers to make you feel all cozy about it.

Why do you think haulage companies spend an inordinate amount of time and money on driver training beyond the obvious parts of the training ? Because driving style can affect fuel economy, sometimes substantially.