BMW i

[JRP3]

My only point about conversions was the design, which started as an ICE. It had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the vehicle as an EV, or any sort of "purity". That's something you projected on my comment. However, as others have stated, I don't view a hybrid, plug in or otherwise, as an EV, because they are hybrids, and I have no interest in a vehicle with an ICE in it. The i3 without the ICE is an EV, the one with an ICE is a hybrid. I don't think either one is a great looking car. As I've discussed extensively in other threads the marketing of plug in hybrids as EV's only leads to more confusion, not less. It's off topic for this thread but many of my thoughts are explained on my blog: http://ephase.blogspot.com/2011/06/volt-is-not-ev.html

 

[qwk]

As to your point on the confusion of lumping the sub-markets together, I agree that it is confusing. Just like the real world. People have lots of choices, and the distinctions are more blurred every day. But drawing these lines is only really meaningful to the extent that the market draws those distinctions. And for some those lines are meaningful - like posters on this forum. But that doesn't mean that's how the rest of the world sees things.

Yes, the real world can be confusing, but that does not mean that informed people like us need to be adding to the confusion. Just because a frog can look and swim like a fish in a stage of it's life does not make it a fish. Nobody intelligent calls a frog a fish, why do we have to call hybrids EV's here?

 

[Doug_G]

As I wrote previously, Doug was comparing the i3 with the range extender to Teslas and saying that only Tesla can make an attractive EV, given that he found the i3 with range extender to be unattractive.

Wow, there's a whole lot more being read into this than I originally intended. I wasn't even thinking of the "range extended" version.

 

[ipdamages]

Wow, there's a whole lot more being read into this than I originally intended. I wasn't even thinking of the "range extended" version.

Exactly. You weren't even thinking about the fact that the photo that you criticized was the range-extended version of the i3, given that the REx and EV versions look the same.

I also agree with your other point - that generally EVs have had dorky designs. And that has slowed adoption. As we see more EVs come to market with a more appealing look, that is sure to grow market acceptance. While Fisker got several things wrong, I think he was right that there is a market for EVs that don't compromise appearance.

And I too don't count concept cars, as they aren't available to the market, which is frequently because the design is not feasible in its ability to bring the necessary criteria to market at a reasonable price. Like the A8 e tron. I like the car's appearance - especially in an EV - but it isn't coming to market, likely for those reasons.

 

[gregincal]

Anything with an ICE onboard is a hybrid. I wouldn't have even considered the i3 because of that reason, among many. Most people I talk to(Tesla Time), are so wowed by the range on the S, they almost always comment on how simple the Model S drivetrain is(no spark plugs, oil changes, alternator, starter, exhaust and so on), and how much more room you get without going to a hybrid like the Volt. Most of them ask why the other manufacturers have to include an ICE. These are ordinary folks, who drive ordinary ICE cars, and have never heard of Tesla.

Auto manufacturers know that simplicity equals less profit, and act accordingly. That's one of the many reasons why there is such a reluctance to kick the ICE habit.

Except you can order the i3 with or without an ICE if you wish, or are you saying it isn't an EV just because the option to possibly have an ICE exists.

 

[qwk]

Except you can order the i3 with or without an ICE if you wish.

You sure can. $50k for a clown car that goes under 100 miles on a charge. No thanks

This car will be a flop.

 

[JRP3]

Except you can order the i3 with or without an ICE if you wish, or are you saying it isn't an EV just because the option to possibly have an ICE exists.

The i3 without an ICE is an EV, the one with one is a plug in hybrid.

 

[qwk]

The i3 without an ICE is an EV, the one with one is a plug in hybrid.

Yep, just like if GM came out with a Volt that didn't have an ICE, that car would be an EV. If it has a tailpipe, the car is not an EV.

 

[brianman]

My point is, there seems to be some weird correlation between "greener" and "goofier". That really isn't helping the transition to electric drive at all.

Some would argue this is intentional, whether for financial or principled reason.

- - - Updated - - -

I also agree with your other point - that generally EVs have had dorky designs. And that has slowed adoption. As we see more EVs come to market with a more appealing look, that is sure to grow market acceptance. While Fisker got several things wrong, I think he was right that there is a market for EVs that don't compromise appearance.

While I personally don't fancy the Fisker Karma look, I think you're hitting on something here. It's barely on-topic for this thread so I'll try to keep it short: I think part of the appeal of the Fisker is less about it's green cred or drivetrain or whatever -- and more about that it's a production vehicle that has a concept car look to it. A lot of people value having that look in an actual vehicle they can buy without having to personally know the company president and/or invest in the company building it.

(IMO) No matter what propulsion they choose to put in the i8, if they can manage to keep some of the (IMO) compelling look of that concept vehicle (and the price is sane) they'll have buyers.

 

[Doug_G]

Some would argue this is intentional, whether for financial or principled reason.

There is no "principle" reason to make a car look dorky. It may be intentional, but that's just misguided. If you attempt to appeal only to the rabid greenies, then that will be your entire customer base. It will be small.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Your lines of distinction are not very meaningful in the marketplace. Who says "I'm looking for an EV, but not if it is a conversion."? And who says "I'm looking for an EV, but not if it has a range extender."?

I think you are reading a bit too much into his statement. JRP3 is only commenting on styling. It's pretty obvious he is excluding conversions because they were styled as an ICE and then had a EV drive-train shoehorned into them without any significant change to style (some may have slight aero tweaks but most of the styling is exactly the same). So comparing to them may open things too broadly (might as well just compare to ICE cars in general).

As for the whole EV vs plug-in hybrid thing, I think that's better for the other thread. And if you open things up to plug-in hybrids, you have to include cars like the Porsche 918, McLaren P1, Karma, BYD Qin (if you include conversions, you also include Panamera S E-Hybrid, Plug-in Prius, Plug-in Accord, etc).

From a styling standpoint what JRP3 is saying is that Tesla has the best looking dedicated BEV.

Of course there's not much to compare under that criteria. We have the Leaf, the Zoe, Bluecar, BYD e6, and maybe the Coda (that might count as a conversion though). i3 is not quite production but almost there. The SP.01 might count, but it's pretty close to a conversion (there's some styling tweaks, but it's still very much recognizable as an Exige). Rimac is extremely limited in volume, but it's not a conversion.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You sure can. $50k for a clown car that goes under 100 miles on a charge. No thanks

This car will be a flop.

Well, I really have reservations about the i3, however the LEAF was pushing $40k when first released and there was no shortage of buyers. Now, 29 months later, and 60,000 cars later, I'd say the LEAF is on track to secure its piece of the pie.

The i3 can also get lots of BMW aficionados who just have to have it, and will pay full price. Then, much like the LEAF, the price will have to drop significantly for the "under 100 mile clown car" to be accepted en mass.

I think the 650cc motorcycle engine is brilliant as an option, mostly because so few people will ever have it turn on, but they will pay the $4500 extra for the "security".

I think not offering a CHAdeMO port is dumb beyond dumb, with those stations being all over where folks actually buy and drive EV's... check out West Coast Green Highway

We will be having a big ceremony on June 29, 2013 to officially join British Columbia to Washington in the West Coast Electric Highway, and to start our All Electric Vehicle Rally, BC2BC-2013, 1500 miles from Canada to Mexico. Great for a LEAF, iMiev, etc, but unfortunately the BMW i3 would have a REALLY tough time with 80-90 mile range (like a LEAF) but no place to quick charge.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think not offering a CHAdeMO port is dumb beyond dumb, with those stations being all over where folks actually buy and drive EV's... check out West Coast Green Highway

I posted it on the CHadeMO adapter thread, but the state governments responsible for the West Coast Green Highway are aware of the compatibility issues between the two standards and are encouraging stations that support both connectors.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...stration/page2?p=331185&viewfull=1#post331185

As for the i3, the only deal breaker about it is that it's one size class smaller than the Leaf and is only a 4 seater. It's closer in class to the iMIEV and Spark EV. I'm not sure that size class can support too high of a price. Recent comments from BMW peg it at the same price as the 3-series, so it might not translate to $50k (which is 5-series territory), but closer to $40k.

 

[gregincal]

Yep, just like if GM came out with a Volt that didn't have an ICE, that car would be an EV. If it has a tailpipe, the car is not an EV.

The part where we disagree is the part where adding an option to the i3 completely changes the market the car is competing in, and that making that distinction is somehow less confusing to the customer.

While adding the gasoline engine certainly technically transforms the i3 into a PHEV, I agree with the CARB distinction that still considers it an white sticker EV. They require it to have the same range as competing EVs (80 miles in this case), less range than that on the gasoline engine and the gasoline engine only ever kicks in when the battery is depleted. Basically the gasoline engine is an emergency backup. For me that's a more practical distinction than having the ideologically pure stance of saying that choosing to add the range extender fundamentally transforms the car.

 

[JRP3]

Certainly there is overlap in the EV and plug in hybrid market, but just as certainly there are those who would not consider a car with an ICE, and others who would not consider a car without one.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The part where we disagree is the part where adding an option to the i3 completely changes the market the car is competing in, and that making that distinction is somehow less confusing to the customer.

You can have a model with a pure ICE and PHEV option (for example the Plug-in Prius, Plug-in Accord, Energi, etc). You can also have pure ICE and BEV option (for example Fit EV, RAV4 EV, Spark EV etc). None of that is confusing to the customer.

The i3 is simply a model with a BEV and PHEV option (first of its kind). Making the distinction makes it clear the PHEV version can run on gasoline. I don't see how that is confusing to the consumer.

Not making the distinction is probably going to be more confusing, because at the same time that you hand-wave the "range-extender" away (trying to minimize it by still calling the car an EV) you get people who think your car can only travel the AER (that's what happened with the Volt).

Edit: didn't see your edit

For me that's a more practical distinction than having the ideologically pure stance of saying that choosing to add the range extender fundamentally transforms the car.

The i3 range extender does blur the line a lot more (certainly more than the Volt and Karma which have a relatively small amount of AER and much more gasoline range), but I would like to point out the distinction is not ideological, but actually technical. It's a distinction that the SAE and EPA also make. It's because once you have "range extender" you can run on gasoline, something no BEV can do. And even if the gasoline tank is small in the i3, you can still fill it much more quickly and in many more places than you can any BEV (which is the whole point). The car is still fundamentally different with the addition of a "range extender".

 

[Doug_G]

This discussion should really be in the "Pure EV Dogma" thread. This thread is supposed to be about the i3.

 

[ipdamages]

I think you are reading a bit too much into his statement. JRP3 is only commenting on styling. It's pretty obvious he is excluding conversions because they were styled as an ICE and then had a EV drive-train shoehorned into them without any significant change to style (some may have slight aero tweaks but most of the styling is exactly the same). So comparing to them may open things too broadly (might as well just compare to ICE cars in general).

As for the whole EV vs plug-in hybrid thing, I think that's better for the other thread. And if you open things up to plug-in hybrids, you have to include cars like the Porsche 918, McLaren P1, Karma, BYD Qin (if you include conversions, you also include Panamera S E-Hybrid, Plug-in Prius, Plug-in Accord, etc).

From a styling standpoint what JRP3 is saying is that Tesla has the best looking dedicated BEV.

Of course there's not much to compare under that criteria. We have the Leaf, the Zoe, Bluecar, BYD e6, and maybe the Coda (that might count as a conversion though). i3 is not quite production but almost there. The SP.01 might count, but it's pretty close to a conversion (there's some styling tweaks, but it's still very much recognizable as an Exige). Rimac is extremely limited in volume, but it's not a conversion.

I tried to clarify when I wrote that my question was better phrased as "Who says 'I'm looking for an EV, but not if it has a range extender option.'?" So if there is a car that is available as an EV and also with a range extender, doesn't that qualify as an EV body style? Like the i3.

I agree that opening it up to every hybrid around gets a bit absurd, as you rightly point out. Throwing a small battery on an ICE doesn't really count. But I think that Tesla isn't the only company that can design an attractive EV - regardless of whether one likes the i3. If you are willing to limit it to only EVs on the market, and not consider the cars that are soon to be released, and not Rimac, then I will agree that only Tesla has brought an attractive EV to market. But that is different from the general characterization that only Tesla can make an attractive EV.

That said, the point that I think has been lost here is that it is really hard to put it all together in an EV, and even more difficult in an EV with a range extender. IMO that is a big part of why we don't see more EVs on the market. It is difficult to get sufficient battery storage and motor and all the rest of the necessary parts in the body of an ICE equivalent - without major adaptation. That is why the Tesla Roadster was built on an Elise chassis - super light weight, so with a battery it would be heavy, but not unacceptably so. And the Model S has to be so huge because it is hard to fit it all on a smaller chassis. I don't think they made it 77" wide because they thought that was sure to be coveted by the market. Instead, buyers tolerate the size (and width in particular) because of all of the great things the car has to offer. But if Tesla could do the Model S 10% smaller with all the same performance (at about the same price) they would sell more Model Ss than they are now. I'd buy one (and go design an aftermarket grille or nose cone replacement). And they expect to enjoy that success of a smaller version when they launch Gen 3 (admittedly, for a much lower price).

So the test of can you build an EV on an existing ICE chassis is a tough one, and I still think that if car manufacturers can do they will be very successful. The problem is the compromises that are required to do that. The Active E goes from a 1-series to the EV version with inferior acceleration, inferior range, and inferior storage. And a higher price. The i3 looks like it will be similarly afflicted (compared to a 3-series ICE).

Are there some who find an EV conversion unacceptable? Sure. Obviously we have some of those folks right here on this forum. But I think that there are lots of people who would gladly take an ICE that has had its engine swapped out and replaced with a highly functional battery and motor, at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the technology just isn't there right now.

To Doug's point, this is my last OT post here.

And getting back on topic, I still like the i3's looks, and I still think it will do well if the range extender doesn't turn out to be too weak to handle a road trip from LA to Las Vegas or SF (about 300 or 350 miles each way). And I'm similarly optimistic about the i8. Also, if they qualify for HOV stickers that will be a huge help in sales.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I tried to clarify when I wrote that my question was better phrased as "Who says 'I'm looking for an EV, but not if it has a range extender option.'?" So if there is a car that is available as an EV and also with a range extender, doesn't that qualify as an EV body style? Like the i3.

I would agree that the i3 qualifies as an EV body style. This is because it was styled as an EV and then had the range extender added. "Conversions" on the other hand clearly started out as an ICE and had the EV drivetrain swapped in. The Roadster, even though it is based on the Elise chassis, definitely counts as an EV body style, since it was a new design (it was not just a tweak of the Elise's design but rather a new design by Lotus). It's similar to how the Leaf rides on a modified Versa platform.

I would agree with JRP3 that the SLS doesn't count since it started as an ICE. But I personally would not object including conversions in the comparison (it wouldn't add that many cars anyways).

And getting back on topic, I still like the i3's looks, and I still think it will do well if the range extender doesn't turn out to be too weak to handle a road trip from LA to Las Vegas or SF (about 300 or 350 miles each way). And I'm similarly optimistic about the i8. Also, if they qualify for HOV stickers that will be a huge help in sales.

I also like the i3's looks (looks better than the Leaf to me), but I worry if the smaller size might limit its market. I know the 4 seat configuration of the Volt has been a deal breaker for some (although the rear center tunnel that makes it impossible to put a child seat in the middle may have more to do with it). And the nerfing of the range extender (seems the main reason is for CARB credits and white sticker eligibility) may end up shooting BMW in the foot.

 

[brianman]

There is no "principle" reason to make a car look dorky. It may be intentional, but that's just misguided. If you attempt to appeal only to the rabid greenies, then that will be your entire customer base. It will be small.

Maybe "principled" has the wrong connotation. My intent was to express that in some cases it's intentional to do the minimum for compliance purposes and to artificially fail "the EV attempt" by making them undesirable vehicles in the marketplace. In many cases that's purely financial, while in other cases it might be philosophical or political, etc.