The i8 is extremely niche and low-volume and can't be much of a factor for them. This left the i3 as their only EV offering. But the i3 is so unlike everything else they make, that they can't build on their appeal to people who already like their cars. That really doesn't build on any of BMW's strengths in the auto industry, in fact it attempts to avoid all of their strengths in the market (German sports luxury vehicles with a lot of history). This it really hard for them to compete with Tesla and other EV makers that are going right for the core of BMW's customer base.
I think part of it was that they didn't want to cannibalize themselves, but surely BMW would rather be cannibalized by BMW than eaten by Tesla. They just didn't have the strength to make that move, for whatever reason.
However, if I were running BMW (and it's surely best for everyone that I'm not), I wouldn't want the i3 to be the core of my EV business. The day-to-day bread-and-butter EVs should target the same demographic sweet spots as BMW's gas guzzlers: expensive but not too expensive, comfortable, attractive, high-performance vehicles with (at least perceived) consistently high quality for components, engineering, innovation, and some combination of classy design and sporty sexiness.
People can argue whether or not they've ever consistently nailed all or any of those marks, but at the very least, that is the niche that BMW aspires to be in in the auto industry, and the niche it has had the most success in occupying. BMW has had great success making a certain type of motorcycle and certain types of cars, and I've got to think they'd have great success making a certain type of EV if they fearlessly applied themselves to doing it. Maybe they've realized their mistakes and are doing that now, who knows, but they're years behind where I wish they were. :( I still think they can catch up as long as they've at least gotten their vision together by now.
Agree completely. I absolutely love the i3 (especially the futuristic design, and the rex engineering), and was going to try to get one at some point -- until I discovered the bicycle tires.
I'm not sure it's even safe to drive on US roads with tires like that. Did BMW forget that potholes are a thing?
Tires cost a fortune because they're annoyingly thin, so wear down fast, and only are made by Bridgestone, I think. Handling is great: carbon fiber and alumin[i]um.
Of course if you’d rather run all-weather tires without the hassle of changing from summer to winter tires, it seems like the i3 is a bad choice.
I can certainly imagine the “bicycle” tires must not be very good at all in the snow unless they’re the specialized winter version!
I'd expect this cost is in the ballpark for their other cars.
I'm actually leasing mine and plan on buying one used. You can find them for sub-25k and quite honestly it's one of the best values EV-wise you can find.
I say "potentially" because one can always screw it up with bad (or poorly tuned) software.
Why do you claim this?
Tesla cannot change the fact that they are a newcomer. They can only stand by their vehicles as best they can (which has been difficult for body work, but most mechanical issues can be handled efficiently).
Furthermore, the look of Tesla vehicles is 100% optimized for drag efficiency. Most electric car purchasers care about range a lot more than look...
Because they are the only manufacturer of EVs that look and feel mostly like regular cars. It's really that simple. Also, please don't miss the "I believe" part of my statement, I have zero facts to back this up, it's just my opinion.
> Furthermore, the look of Tesla vehicles is 100% optimized for drag efficiency.
Who cares? I want my car to be 100% optimized for not looking like a deranged design experiment. I want it to look like all the other cars. I, just like most other people, aren't special and don't really care to look that way either.
Did you mean to write "nobody except Tesla understands" in your previous comment? This reads like you've accidentally trash talked them while trying to praise them, and now you're in a weird disagreement with someone you kind of agree with.
60k will get you the Performance Model with 0-60 in 3.2s and 11.6 1/4 mile
So buy a LEAF (which looks just like a Prius) or buy a Bolt (which looks just like a Spark) or an Outlander EV (which is almost identical to a regular Outlander) or an Ioniq (which looks like an Elantra) or a Kona EV (which is almost identical to a regular Kona SUV).
There are plenty of electric cars that look like traditional boring cars, if that's really the only thing holding you back.
The new one does. The old one is as different as it can be.
I don't think that the diversity of headlights is an exception to the rule of cars all looking the same, but rather one instance out of many of designers having far more freedom than they did historically, and so there's a lot more variation in what they produce.
Fewer and fewer people are buying sedans, but it's easy to pick a couple to contrast. Take the Ford Fusion and Taurus. The Fusion is all ovals, while the Taurus seems to be made out of chamfered blocks and trapezoids. Or consider the previous generation Hyundai Sonata. The current one is generic looking, I would agree, but the one sold from 2010-2014 looked like no other sedan that I've seen.
It looks a bit like a Mustang.
I felt the i8 was an £80k car with £30k of tech, whereas the Tesla was a £30k car with £80k tech.
As an unexpected bonus, my pregnant wife found it easier to get in and out the i8 compared to standard cars entries :)
The bmw website doesn’t even show options for 330e so that seems to be discontinued and for the 530e the electric range is 16 miles, so basically a luxury Prius.
The 330e is still available on the BMW UK website.
(I checked and it seems that a Tesla model 3 does indeed have a battery on the order of ten times the capacity of, say, a Prius Prime)
If the lifetime of a vehicle is say 400000 kms, I calculate that a new Prius emits less CO2 than a new Model S if manufacturing etc is included.
embedded energy (production) for EV is higher but not that much higher https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-...
A Prius gets approx 50 MPG!
Every wall socket is a charge point, and most people have dozens of those around their house. They're surely more abundant than petrol stations.
I wouldn't buy a pure-electric until nearly all apartments have charging, and that work has barely started.
On top of that, I find public charging points to be hit and miss. Quite often you find ICE only cars taking the space or the charging points just out of service/neglected.
I do look forward to the day when electric charging networks are available everywhere with rapid charging.
Think about that for a moment, you are trained as a mechanical engineer. You know about motors, transmissions and all the complexity involved in creating a combustion engine car, like handling fluids, pumps and so on.
Now, you are going to take a decision that destroys engines, your new cars are not going to have engines. Transmissions are extremely simple or do not exist. The entire car does not need to resist the forces of the engine and transmission. No pumps and brakes last the entire life of the car.
This means mechanical engineers are not needed, and you already have them. Under German law, it is extremely difficult to let them go, and they are your pals,btw.
The infrastructure of cars is extremely expensive, several 1000s millions of dollars per plant. This is amortized in decades. If you buy a thousand lathes that make pieces for 20 years and after 10 years demand for those pieces disappear... your lathes cost at least double.
But the most important thing: Germany is good making mechanical things, but not the leader in batteries or electronics, Japan, US, Taiwan and China are.
BMW fans still like the product however fast, rear-wheel drive saloon cars are a dying segment of the market. The once invincible three series is just not as common on the roads as it used to be.
Making SUV models in North America is a good idea for Americans insatiable desire to buy European brand vehicles and Americans desires to buy SUVs. But, no offence to American labour or supply chains, it is a bit of a final assembly screwdriver operation. The engines and plenty else comes from Germany. Some components did make it over to South Carolina but you can't say the plant is a charitable effort to hire U.S. workers or a means of tapping into U.S. automotive worker skills, it is a money making machine that gets around tariffs, Chicken Tax or not.
BMW EV cars are not strictly about being EV. The electric bits come from Bosch, the same Bosch that supply every other EV maker apart from Tesla. You just buy those bits.
What BMW did and is quite commendable is carbon fibre. They are the only mass market manufacturer making passenger cells in carbon fibre. They went into it big time with the i3 and i8.
What is also interesting about BMW is how they are owned. Most auto manufacturers are owned by the banks. They don't really own their stuff any more than a mortgage owner owns their own house. They are paying interest. To the banks. BMW are different, they own all their own stuff and don't owe the banks. This is quite admirable.
For automakers like BMW the EV market is to them what the vegetarian market is to McDonalds. Sure we should all stop eating meat and save the planet but that ain't gonna happen. Falling sales in burgers, now that is a real problem. Same with ICE cars for the likes of BMW.
The reason is well known: BMW has been too focused on sustaining innovations extending their current strengths than disruptive innovation that will eventually displace them -- classic Clayton Christensen:
Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
I saw this first hand in the firewall market starting back in 2012ish. Palo Alto Networks came to the plate with a fundamental shift. "Safely enable applications" was one of their original selling tactics. This went against other firewalls that were playing whack-a-mole with ports and IPs, where PAN was focusing on applications (App-ID). The founder, Nir Zuk, even made fun of his competitors (he had a very public rivalry with Gil Shwed, CEO of Checkpoint) by using "Innovators Dilemma" to showcase their failures to innovate based on the fact that they had a huge customer base they didn't want to disrupt, again in the name of quartely earnings and appeasing Wall Street. Fast forward 7+ years and PAN has eaten it's competition, but hasn't innovated in 4+ years. Now the company just buys up competition preemptively and will eventually realize the same fate Checkpoint did. Nir has fallen victim to his own hypocrisy. Successful? For sure. But that doesn't change the reality of their focus today (profit) vs earlier (R&D).
I think these cycles are natural and likely good for innovation within industries. Will BMW survive? Most likely. But over the next couple of decades they may be forced to reinvent, and as the article states they may be behind the rest of the pack playing catch-up due to the debt of not moving early and ignoring the intrinsic market signals.
This is presented as shortsightedness, but that's misleading. It's not that the incumbent is willfully ignoring the threat, or choosing not to take a long view, but that they have an existing business which is much larger than the niche being attacked and they have to run that business this quarter and next. If they abandon it, they've just destroyed everything they have anyway.
If it was mere foolishness with an obvious counter, it wouldn't happen over and over again to people who think they know better.
This is not something I thought of, this is something that was explained quite well by the person who, I think, coined the term "disruptive innovation" and whose book I read in college back in the late 90s.
I can break down the buzzwords a little:
- Hybrid Cloud = Works in an on-premises DC and public cloud(s)
- Workload = Works on bare-metal servers, virtual machines, and containers
- Protection =
- Distributed micro-segmentation (enforced via host firewalls, as close as possible to the app, sometimes integrated with the app)
- Vulnerability analysis (build time and/or runtime)
- Exploit detection
This is typically achieved via a small agent that runs on each "workload" backed by some type of centralized control appliance.
Guess who one of the innovators in this space is? You might not believe it...
Right?! What goes around comes around.
The CWP market is still somewhat nascent, but in my opinion, it is poised to explode.
Like the parent pointed out, the days of traditional hardware firewalls - or even worse "virtualized" versions of said boxes - are numbered, like it or not.
Disclaimer: I work on Tetration, Cisco's 3-year old in-house developed Hybrid Cloud Workload Protection product. That's right, not an acquisition.
Oh, and did I mention, the whole thing is a SaaS that requires zero hardware?
"The Cisco Tetration platform is designed to fully address these challenges, using comprehensive traffic telemetry data collected from both servers and Cisco Nexus® switches." 
And there it is... Also it looks like Cisco wants to sell you Tetration hardware clusters. To be fair it looks like you can also run Tetration-V on your own, but you'll still pay for licensing.
Regardless I still think this is a miss for the next decade. Partially because the solution is dependent on proprietary hardware and partially because the solution is "agent" based, which is a legacy approach to security spun out in Tetration by ties to hardware and a bundled data lake (Elastic, I assume?).
True, you can use the Nexus 9000 switches to generate flow telemetry, however, neither are they the recommended or most popular data gathering point, that would be the software agent which has no hardware dependency.
This interestingly links to other discussions in the thread re: keeping the run-rate business strong while growing an innovative business in parallel. In Cisco, everything pays tribute to the switch, but that does not mean we are dictated by it ;) - a reasonable compromise to foster innovation.
Also true, you can buy Tetration in a physical appliance format (many customers want this for their reasons), but the majority of customers actually go for the Tetration-as-a-Service option which has no hardware dependency.
Agent based is always an interesting topic. For us, it is about getting as close as possible to the application we are to protect, and being agent based is about as close as you can go before getting into the code path, in a cross-platform, cross-infrastructure way. What this allows us to do is apply proper security controls like zero-trust that we take for granted in newer environments (like Kubernetes, which also often uses agents, they just named them sidecars) to legacy environments, where the bulk of today’s business applications still run.
+ Yes, Elastic is part of our stack, alongside a lot of other interesting technology. We process millions of events per second from all sorts of sources, like campus user logons, process executions, and new flows all in short order, detect how we should mutate the state of the "data centre" security based on the new information, then take actions like dynamically updating ACLs across tens of thousands of workloads to allow a new administrator SSH access since they logged onto a desktop in the London branch, while at the same time updating rules on the shared databases due to an application that just failed over to the secondary DC in Ashburn. I could talk on this topic for a long time as I find it highly interesting, but I'll hold on for another post.
Instead, they ditched their history, customer base and treated the EV market as a total joke: i3.
"With the electric motor and combustion engine providing a total output of 369hp and 420 lb-ft of torque, the i8 Coupe and i8 Roadster more than live up to the sporting heritage of BMW – blowing through 0-60mph in as little as 4.2 seconds."
so it's also not particularly fast either... considering a non performance tesla model s with 4+ seats does 4.0s and is really an ev...
so the i8 is more of a gas car... this IMO is why it didn't sell very well either. It's not an ev and it's not that fast compared to a tesla that it was trying to position itself against...
Technology: BMW's bet was on lightweight materials and less on battery technology as an enabler for ecological, electric vehicles. Production is still costly and more complex than for e.g. the 3 series. Currently, there is only one plant that is equipped with the necessary manufacturing capabilities (Leipzig).
Manufacturing: You need to adapt the assembly lines, which is not as trivial as it may sound. BMW's future platforms will allow assembly of EV's along ICE's on the same belts! At that point, you can produce EVs in all of BMW's plants (... with some modifications)
Financial: BMW is not really making money with the i3, production is too costly. Given that BMW is a public company, you don't want to mass produce a product that eats your profit. Try to explain that to "traditional" shareholders that like their dividends. TSLA is an entirely different stock, which can do what it does due to its growth story.
Also: Plants cost a lot of money build and operate. Stopping the production in a plant for a while to remodel it for a different assembly process as well (... not to mention the retraining of all the workers, new logistical processes). The magnitude is somewhere in the million dollars per day.
Human factors: In German labor law, you can't just fire people. Giving up on ICEs means that you have a lot of people that are not qualified for alternative technologies and need to be retrained. This does not happen in days or weeks - at the scale of BMW this takes years and of course is happening.
Sourcing: You need to source all the materials, incl. batterie. My guess is that BMW wanted to work with established players that know car manufacturing. However, that was probably a mistake given that e.g. BOSCH decided to quit (https://electrek.co/2018/02/28/bosch-gives-up-battery-cell-p...)
Shareholders: We had the topic before, but BMW is special here that the Quandt family owns roughly 46% of BMW. Accordingly they have a major influence on all decisions at BMW. They act definitely not like an Elon Musk - they are very cautious and strategic. They also seem to act labor friendly and have a positive impact on the work conditions at BMW (... again meaning that they will make sure that BMW doesn't have to let go a lot of people).
It was twice the price of an M3/M4. 20 million yen for the i8 versus 10million for a top of the line M3 or M4. Prices in Japan for foreign makes are already marked up, because they're perceived as a luxury good. The i8 was marked up even more. At that price, I'd rather get an Aston.
Next one is a subjective thing, it's looks are a bit too flashy doesn't it? Nice thing about the M cars (and Teslas), they blend in.
AFAIU Borders succumbed more to overexpansion and debt than legacy-protection.
Waldenbooks had been around since 1933. Books-A-Million dates to 1917. Borders to 1971. Barnes & Noble has been around in some form for ~150 years.
It wasn't overexpansion and debt that destroyed them all (yes, some are still standing in a straggling-on-zombie sort of way).
I'm aware the industry has seen shifts.
It's the only car in the industry that took seriously sustainability. (Sustainable textile, recycled material, end of life reusability and recycling. etc.)
The efficiency is excellent, about 5kwh less per 100km than a tesla. It drives great, it's powerful, fun to drive. I haven't found a i3 owner that didn't like his car yet.
With the range extender it removed range anxiety without add long recharge time on a trip. (granted with more frequent stop)
I bought a used one last week. Maybe it's the honey moon, but it's the best car I have ever own, by far.
The lack of leadership from top executive made the car unpopular, not the car itself. This also led to a lot of employee turnover because the lack of seriousness about the i series.
There have been many cars in history that have been popular beyond what top leadership has said. The failure of the i3 isn't that. It's a car that has a very small target market. If that was their goal, that's fine. But if they thought it was going to sell well BMW dropped the ball.
Regardless, it's good for you since you likely got a great deal.
That's not fair since (unless you mod it) the REX only kicks in when you get to 6% battery. In the year I have been driving the i3 I have used less then a gallon of gas.
Also, why do automakers keep taking the spare tires away? If you live near a city, well, great, but anyone who lives outside of "town" needs to be self-sufficient.
I appreciate a lot about the car, but its time is almost up. There are some screwy German things about it that just get more annoying as time goes by and lots of things broke before even 50K miles that never broke on Toyotas and Hondas I owned. BMW needs to go back to making cars, not computers on wheels.
Despite using a full CFRP body, like that of supercars, mass savings were small.
It is also heavy because of tons of German luxury features that should have no place in an entry level vehicle.
It was also generically marketed on being "sporty" and "fun" to drive, while being one of the more morbid EV around, much like Chinese entry level EVs.
The design suffers from usage of enormous amount of unique, custom made parts and materials.
Basically it is an EV equivalent of Suzuki Mehran on performance and feel, but painted over to make it fit the "New Type Luxury EV" marketing concept.
No lag, always full torque.
Just like any EV, but without ludicrous acceleration of top tier EVs, or just that of average sport car. And despite being an RWD car, it turns and handles the road not much better than FWD econoboxes, which means no actual motorsport person was involved in its design.
Most businesses never want to make a step that makes them less money, it has to be growth, growth, growth at any cost.
This is why startups win, because they make less than X money, and can afford to chose different paths to slowly move up. Big Corps are notoriously afraid of choosing paths that cannibalizes their main business.
Barnes & Noble, Kodak, Yahoo, Blockbuster - Got killed by that sort of thinking.
If anything, BMW was driving people away from themselves faster than customers were already fleeing to e.g. Tesla or, more recently, Audi (e-tron), Jag (i-pace) and Mercedes (EQC) for electrics.
(this might become a BMW rant, for which I apologize)
1. Reduced the 4y/50k maintenance to 3y/36k. This wasn't impactful for the average lease but slammed car owners.
2. Locked the maintenance program to the first owner -- as if they didn't hate owners enough, you had to pay extra for a maintenance program that transferred to the next owner.
3. To your point: offensive subscription charges (carplay)
4. (subjective) Bizarre styling changes on their mainstream cars, e.g. X7 and the new 7 series.
5. Refusing to produce normal electric vehicles, per the title of this article.
End result is you now have cars like the i3 and i8 cratering in value because they're hideously complex, in need of specialized maintenance knowledge, and are exceedingly unlikely to carry a maintenance plan without incurring an e.g. 2, 3, 5k fee. It's awful for BMW because now nobody wants to buy one of their more innovative cars because they'll lose 20% of their value right off the lot and another 40% in the next three years, but it's even worse for people who wouldn't mind adopting "established" electric because they don't want to chance the marked-up repairs nor do the research to figure out which cars either have pre-existing maintenance plans or how much they should pay to get all-inclusive maintenance plans that would cover their used cars.
It's just a whole bunch of dumb all around.
Also i3s use a special, skinny tire that is really expensive
As it should be, and that was actually Tesla's goal. Elon Musk did say that what he wants is for the world to electrify transportation, and whether or not Tesla will remain a market leader is irrelevant.
Most reviews have the Tesla Model 3 performance outperforming the similarly priced M3. Many have the LR Tesla model 3 as competitive to sometimes beating the BMW 3 series. The sales success at Tesla has come partially at the cost of BMW car sales.
> All Tesla needs to do is build out a similar Supercharger infrastructure in other big cities like we have in Bay Area and Los Angeles
I haven't looked in a while, so I checked out the Supercharger map for New York, DC, Chicago and Dallas, and was pretty surprised at how many superchargers are available already, with even more on the way.
Teslas feel cheap and poorly made. The offerings have some pretty stark differences.
When your competitor has bested you on the primary function of your product; is perceived by consumers as way cooler than you; holds a decisive technology advantage in an area that is perceived as critical to the long-term survival of your product; and your only response is "better fit and finish" -- well, I think this is a very bad place for a luxury car manufacturer to be.
If i3 would look like a real BMW, a lot of people would want to buy it and pay the premium price...but it doesn't have the ,,fit and finish'' of a BMW 3.
It feels like a Honda Civic. Like a cheap downmarket economy car. Sure it has acceleration but so does a BMW more than you’ll ever need too. The experience is obviously disappointing if you’re used to German luxury cars.
The point being, that if the German luxury brands get the hang of the electric thing Tesla’s going to be in severe danger.
I think that what is frustrating and annoying to many people is that BMW, VW, Mercedes, et al., could have done the same as Tesla and done it better but they didn't. And the only rational conclusion is that they behaved that way because they were scared that they would cannibalize their existing product lines and because a number of high ranking people in the car business would have found themselves to be irrelevant and quite likely unemployed.
They have only themselves to blame for their short sighted, self serving, polluting, cheating behaviour.
This works for lots of people, but if they could get better interiors they would do much better against luxury. But they seem to be doing pretty well against bmw as is.
I was utterly unimpressed on my Model 3 test drive. A $50,000 car should ride better. The driving experience was nothing special. The few tactile controls felt like cheap toy plastic.
I did like the UI, sort of. Put it on an overlay on the windshield in front of the driver and I think you have something close to the future. I liked the concept of the customizable, simple controls on the steering wheel — the execution is unpleasant.
And yeah, you can take off quickly and go quickly. So what?
Musk needs to sit in a mid-2000’s Volkswagen Passat for an hour or so.
The US is the second largest single market for BMWs, behind China (China buys nearly twice as many BMWs as the US market now). It's about 14% of their total group unit volume (~350k out of ~2.5m). It's a similar number for Mercedes. For Porsche the US is about 20% of their sales.
In 1995 they sold 95,000 BMWs in the US. By 2007 that was up to 293,000. They haven't seen a huge collapse in units sold in the US (10%-12% or so), however I think the slide backwards and continued rise of Tesla is obviously very concerning as a threat. They know they have to do something right now.
I wonder if those kind of corporations will even be able to change their direction in time.
Got to test drive the Model S a few times and was impressed. But it’s expensive, and despite the wonders of the low center of gravity and good balance, it’s heavy. Also got to try a 3-series “E” as a loaner. Turned it in wondering why the %#%* they didn’t just make it all electric, instead of the 11 mile electric range they gave it. I would have bought that car immediately.
When the model 3 came out, it seemed faster and slightly cheaper than the most comparable 3 series. Personally, I prefer the Tesla interior to the Bmw. The handling is much better than the S, and with the 3 series handling no longer the focal point, I think the Tesla is more fun to drive, too.
Which leaves me scratching my head. I can only conclude that most traditional car companies are run by ICE people who believe in tweaking engines to get more power. They just can’t imagine that electric propulsion is not just an environmental thing, but a better driving experience— instant torque, low center of gravity, great balance— all the stuff that BMW was supposed to be good at.
They are loosing their 'sporty' pedigree and credibility fast, and turning into another me-too luxury car brand, without a proper identity and/or market distinctiveness....
Their new M8 "performance grand tourer" weights almost as much as a Ford F-150 Truck.... not kidding
They can add as many 'sport badges to it', it is still an overweight sedan...
The only improvement has been in interiors, where they always lagged. Their quality has actually risen last few years.
Agree on the interior quality improving, but only because they cost too much corner in previous gen models, including F30, which was an abomination.
However, his opinion is usually based on a few days of driving and using the car, and does not reflect how ownership of the car will actually pan out. He attempts to take this into account with his "daily doug score". But by no means is this entirely accurate, and is more so a reasonable estimate based on the manufacturers history, that model, and consumer reviews.
I generally take his analyses as "This is what I thought after driving the car for a few days" and is based on his opinion, his preferences, and his thoughts. I would take his opinion into account for a rental car, but not so much when it comes to owning a car for its lifetime.
He generally owns luxury cars or sports cars that are out of reach for most people, and I'm sure he has spent a lot of money on them (although it may be worth it if they appreciate in value). He has a different need in cars than I, and probably than most people.
The videos are a great and fun overview of all the little details that you might not know unless you're an owner, but it serves better as an addon to a more thorough review elsewhere of the actual driving technology and experience. SavageGeese, Remove Before Race, Carfection are good channels to follow.
It's more to say he doesn't spend a month living with a car so it's usually surface level details like a weird UI rather than explaining how the transmission affects the fuel and comfort in daily commutes.
I would be more interested in Randy Pobst's opinion on handling and performance, but Doug is certainly equal to any other bog-standard auto journalist.
If they could make the economics of scale happen, they would rather prefer something like lohc as energy carrier.
Its storageable hydrogen, so its the natural product of decentralized renewable energy production. It has not recharge time, no battery decay. Only problem is- there is nothing but the car-industry who wants this.
1 litre of LOHC => 2 kWh
1 litre of Petrol => 9.7 kWh
(according to this: https://greennav.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/how-much-energy-in...)
I don't know about the accuracy of it, but I found this:
...and it says that 33.70 kWh of electricity is the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline; since 1 litre is about 0.26 gallons - that's close to the other number (off somewhat though; 8.76 kWh instead of 9.7 kWh).
Regardless - it all seems to point to that either the tanks in a car would need to be 4-6 times larger - or the engines have to change in some manner to deliver the same level of performance with less energy - or something like that. Probably a combination of both.
I'm making the assumption that the LOHC would be carried on-board the vehicle, as that seems (?) like it would be safer and easier than carrying around compressed hydrogen (embrittlement issues, migration issues, consumer aversion perhaps). I don't know, though, if LOHC is more or less dangerous for consumers to handle like gasoline, or if the dehydrogenation process can be done on-board a vehicle; the paper doesn't go into such detail. It does safe it is safe to store and transport via normal methods, so it sounds like it might be ok in that regard for consumers.
Well according to this paper lohc still has a better energy density then batterys and we would loose the recharge waits.
Also existing infrastructure could be reused and it allows the indefinite storage and transport of renewables, if created at source with no additinal conversion loss.
As far as i know there are several varieties in research - with one condensend form (which isnt liquid- sorry im not really a expert on this) - beeing a factor 10 energy denser.
I think this one is the paper..
I can not say how serious these technologies are driven. The trad car companies have a lot to loose when the car is reduced to 4 engines and a steering wheel.
I still think lithium ion batterys have some use- as birthing help to alternatives, who would otherwise be stuck in development hell.
Batteries currently have better effective energy density than hydrogen ironically given how heavy the tanks need to be to contain the metal embrittling escape artist that is hydrogen. Yet the traditional auto manufacturers bizzarely seem to have decided to make hydrogen their hill to die on.
Not enough room? You can build a floating solar panel, that just ships over the ocean, generating charged LOHC which then is collected by a automated ship.
PS: If you look at the references of this paper you can see the BMW research that is referenced.
Tesla revealed they currently recycle the packs.
Use packs can be repurposed as house batteries for grid stability.
The data shows the battery lifespan far exceeds initial forecasted length.
I'm sure years from now Tesla will get no credit for dragging incumbent carmakers kicking and screaming into the EV market, but they really should get the lion's share of the credit for this. Because I'm certain that without Tesla, BMW and other carmakers wouldn't even have started making "EV platforms" or EVs from scratch until 2030+.
The Prius is fine. Practical vehicles. Probably still a more reasonable choice for many. But, Tesla made electric cars look like the future, even to the average person.
I must add that I am not really a Tesla zealot. I drive a Civic, Teslas seem too expensive (not necessarily over priced, just too expensive for me) and have their fair share of issues. But what they did for the perception of EVs is different than what anyone else has done imo.
The Prius at least fit into Toyota's market segment.
 This is not totally true. There were some once off electric cars in the 1990's that were sporty. Friend dated a women that owned one. It only had a range of about 40-50 miles but it was FAST.
Tesla did a great job at making EV cool, there's no question about it.
BUT, economics of that are still TBD. They still fail to achieve any sustainable profit as a business, few years after their mass market vehicle debuted, and have to keep on raising money, on very unfavorable terms.
They struggle to produce it cheaply enough, at least as of right now. Manufacturing, at scale and within costs is really really hard. Tesla's initial math for cracking the economy was based on full automation of the production, that failed spectacularly. As a result they have a lot of human labor costs they didn't plan for, so problem of optimizing it got even harder.
Did Tesla made desirable product? Yes, of course. Can they crack the economy of it? We'll see.
You’re correct that Tesla’s future and costs are uncertain, but that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that the production cost of a Model 3-type EV will never be as high as it was in 2018. It will never be as high as it is in 2019. Even without miraculous supply chain improvements, the cost of lithium batteries and electric drivetrains is on a relentless downward path. If Tesla can make one now at $10 in profit (obviously they make more than that), then whichever company is doing so in 5-8 years will be earning thousands in profit. And if the manufacturer is not BMW, it will be the end of that company as a viable competitor.
Investors can lose their shirt on a viable company. Just as they can make bank on a company that's a flash in the pan. Investors can often make money on companies that are actually failing and going to fail. There is probably an correlation between how hardball the company plays it's investors and the companies ultimate viability.
Same with the electric RAV4, which I believe was the first EV in the past 20 years or so. They made it, and then barely changed anything at all to it 20 years later.
Toyota doesn't care about EVs and never did, even when it struck them in the face.
Research more about the 1997-2000 period mentioned there. Sure Tesla had a part to play in the adoption of EVs but it is more about existing at the right time and bringing on the right (for the business) ceo than about any special vision.
ADD: what actually begat the Roadster was AC Propulsion’s 2003 Tzero , a company which can be traced back to the famous EV1 (of “Who Killed The Electric Car”).
the car mfrs already knew you could build such a thing. the reason they didn’t is they had no reason to build a loss leader product.
But now the Model S is the best sedan on the road at any price, and I’ve driven the 2019 BMWs and others. The interiors are cluttered up with incoherent “luxury” features to try to justify the price point, but nothing works that well together except for the drivetrain itself. I don’t want a crystal shifter knob and eight different buttons to lower the rear seats and a head-up display that occasionally knows the speed limit and iPads protruding from the seat backs and a lane-keeping feature that randomly jerks the wheel. This stuff makes the retracting door handles on the Tesla seem almost practical.
I do want a car that drives great and looks great and minimizes maintenance and running costs. No ICE drivetrain can deliver the same acceleration thrill as the Tesla drivetrain, so what’s the point? The only thing left is range and hauling power, so pickup trucks, vans, and for now, SUVs.
Of course, some won’t value what it can do, but the hate over minor details is not justified.
And of course I am too old and cynical, and want my stick shift back, but the driving experience in Model S was very much blah. That's one of those things that you can do well only if you know how to build cars, not computers on wheels.
As for ownership experience, maybe it is that bad with BMW, although I doubt it, but I've never had any problems with Audi, and it has been far more pleasant than what I've heard of Tesla...
What's a niche golf cart is the US is a mainstream car in France (or Japan). There's a reason why Renault's equivalent of the Nissan Leaf, called Renault Zoe, is even smaller than the Leaf: it's tailored to the French urban market.
Interestingly the German market is probably more vulnerable to Tesla than the French one (since after all this is about BMW). Tesla is after the like of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, etc. But not the like of Renault, Peugeot, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, Opel, Fiat, etc. (Though of course Volkswagen owns Audi, so it's not all that simple...).
As a New-Yorker (currently, hopefully not for too long) I stand on the side: I don't even have a valid US driver license. I mean, what could I possibly do with a car in NYC?
But huge majority of people aren't car enthusiasts, so they don't care. They want affordable and easy way of moving from point A to point B.
Getting car people excited is great. But you need to target average joe if you want to change the world.
I'm sure it was perfect for some people - just like a smart car. But it would fall down for typical daily usage for lots of people who don't care about cars, but do have a highway commute, say.
It was an ok car if you never, ever needed to use a highway.
The leaf was always too compromised to be viable. The model S and model X at least competed, and the model 3 is rolling most of it's competition along traditional germans.
No one got excited about Leafs and Priuses, but there are lots of videos about people drag racing Model S.
This... is not true. Lots of people were excited by the Prius, specifically. In the 2000s that car was so hot that it was a mark of status for Hollywood celebrities to be seen driving them.
The Leaf, yeah, nobody ever got too excited by that. But the Prius was genuinely A Thing.
In a hairshirt sort of way.
Nobody wants an i3 because it’s a stupid looking car with no market edge over I.e. a Tesla
And nobody can afford an i8
So they may as well threw their market lead for nothing. They failed to make a practical vehicle, like the electric 3-series sedan that probably everyone wished they made.
However, I was turned off by the bizarre appearance of the car. I am pretty thick skinned, but would still be thinking that other motorists were laughing their heads off, while I was driving it.
Why do manufacturers feel obliged to make new technology cars looks like cheap and nasty toys ?
BMW also got fined and caught up in doing the same emissions scandal :- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/car-emission...
Yet it took this for the BMW CEO to step aside!
Perhaps another way of implementing that would be that bonuses are held in escrow for a number of years, the employee is allowed to get interest free loans against those escrow bonuses up to a point perhaps, yet those bonuses will equally be open to adjusting for bad years.
Which reminds me of the reinsurance industry and names, those who invest. Even when they leave, they are still liable for future claims for a number of years, a notice period. That's fair and works.
That seems quite different from what VW did. VW made it so emissions were good during testing but bad during regular driving. That article says BMW (and others) colluded to make emissions bad all the time. When emissions are bad all the time, the testers are not being fooled about how the emissions actually look.
And they've been making a lot of noise about their plan to shift their lineup to full electric (not watered down hybrids) for some time now.
Through the entire supply chain, hundreds of thousands of jobs and massive impact on the wider economy, electrification, competitive effects in the energy market, and climate change, all depending on a handful of people.
People who (in this particular context) have no particular motivation for..really anything, with virtually infinite inherited wealth. Especially not to rock the boat or drive any vision forward.
That, in a nutshell, is why Germany's car industry is dying long-term. VW ownership same thing via Porsche SE.
I find this incredibly interesting, how entire economies ultimately lag and long-term may fail on the bottleneck of a few randomly selected people. Interestingly, there seems to be no good way out because disowning individuals for the collective good is a path that historically does not tend to work well for innovation either.
Ultimately, I think the shareholders of Tesla influence company strategy as much as Klatten et al, which is not very much at all. It's the people at the top.
The Zaibatsus will fail because of aging population and traditionalism.
The Chaebols will fail because of archaic hierarchy of the korean society.
In my mind, this means dis-incentivizing scale. Replace 10000 people dependent on one entity with 10 entities each dependent on 1000. Get rid of mergers and vertical integration and fight accumulated wealth..?
I dont know where you got that opinion from. BMW is perhaps Europe's most successful & profitable car company, probably second most successful globally after Toyota.
> That, in a nutshell, is why Germany's car industry is dying long-term. VW ownership same thing via Porsche SE.
The first company that will be dying soon is Tesla.
The latest EU elections have seen an unprecedented rise of the Greens at the European level, so I expect regulation against greenhouse gases to go only one way: more taxes on gas, more regulations, more choking of the ICE car market. German carmakers need to get their act together or they will die of irrelevance.
The marketshare of electric vehicles globally will be > 90% in the future. And not "the future" like some Star Trek utopia.
Ireland has committed to no new petrol/diesel cars from 2030 onwards. UK has committed to 2040 but is likely moving that to 2030. Other countries in the EU will follow with similar timelines.
This is in just over 10 years. If your cars all need to be electric by 2030, you need to have already put in place the strategy to do that and be already implementing your manufacturing chain. If it's 2040 you have a bit more time, but you would still want to be doing it within the next 5 years.
In the transition some will win and some will lose. So far the German automakers have not looked at this drastic market shift seriously... It needs to change if they want to stay relevant.
But my point is that anyone's electric marketshare in 2019 is pretty meaningless as a predictor of 2040 or even 2030 results. And the 2019 rankings very much remind me of a certain (quite bad) scifi novel I've read, where in the furure everyone drives electric cars, except for the really rich who zoom around in extremely expensive ICE vehicles.
Also, governments might want to push for electric vehicles, but it is not obvious that the public will go along with it -- so far the only way to make electric cars outsell traditional ones is a severe distortion of the pricing as in Norway.
But many countries in the EU have made similar commitments, with EOL between 2025 (Norway) and 2040 (France).
Hence why I specifically said India, China and the EU. I don’t think the Anglo Saxon world is taking this issue at heart much yet (besides UK).
If the regulator ban something automakers will adapt. And so will the population.
AFAIK the climate change issue is way less politicized in continental Europe than in the US, which makes action so much more easy. Lobby and corruption are still an issue though...
China is very much a separate market (aren't most well-selling German luxury brands there also made in China, and not necessarily exact same models as available elsewhere?), and US population might adapt... or we may end up with more trumps and regulations explicitly favoring ICE vehicles. People usually aren't too happy about paying more for an inferior product.
BMW's main benchmark is Daimler and BMW lost the ICE race to them and also the EV lead. Tesla didn't make enough cars to be a threat in the last 4 years.
all in all a very incompetent CEO. the only one in BMW history not to have an 8 year mandate.
Back in the mid 00s, everyone thought the next big think looked like a smaller PC (analogy: EV cars) or a souped up phone (analogy: EV bikes/scooters). The iPhone changed the game (with Android quickly cementing that change).
What happens when it's more convenient to charge or have an EV-as-service than gas-up or get a cab/uber? The automobile industry is due for a massive shakeup and the more efficient batteries and more widespread chargers get, the more likely that the future cuts out the petroleum economy.
I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile; if the makers of windows mobile phones hadn't stagnated for so long I doubt Apple would have been anymore of a blip than Palm was; moreover, I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, they really just iterated on their competitors' innovations.
To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.
The second part of your sentence answers the first part of your sentence.
It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features.
> To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.
But on the other hand you think the iPod was innovative. When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone ("Less space than a nomad. Lame."). In a comparison test with other MP3 players it didn't come out on top, either.
Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. I used Windows Mobile before the iPhone came out and it was complete trash, regardless of how many features it technically had.
It lacked MMS; it wasnt even really a phone, much less a capable smartphone. You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features.
I used windows mobile phones for years before the iPhone. The iPhone was complete trash to me because I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
> When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone
I said precisely nothing about the iPod release. What I implied was that the iPod was viewed as innovative by the time the iPhone was released (hence my usage of the word inertia; inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod).
> Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for.
The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful.
> I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile.
> inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod
What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative.
> The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think)
I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged.
And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS.
> The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.
I'd had a couple of Windows Phones, complete with their plastic cases, resistive touchscreens, and stylii. Some of the apps might have been more capable than the iPhone's at launch, but the hardware was primitive in comparison.
(Though I seem to remember a capacitive screen on one of my windows mobile phones; I could be wrong though)
The iPhone was the first phone that a) had a plan with data as a guarantee and b) had an appstore that didn't suck.
a) meant that you could browse get maps & real webpages (albeit with ATT it was 2G/EDGE) anywhere you got signal.
b) was without peer for years. The alternatives really sucked. I know, I tried all of them. Do you remember installer packages or having to DL the app on a PC to sync? Yeah, this was a game-changer.
It was as others mention, also the first widely available device with capacitive touch (Apple called it multitouch) and it was a UX coup with iOS.
 incentives mades Tesla far more affordable about over 50% of ALL cars sold were Teslas (last year?)
Meaning I can travel much further or refill in an emergency as needed, if I don't have any way of getting fuel otherwise.
I can't see how this would ever be possible with a battery; you can't carry around a partial battery (well, you could - in theory - but install it?), and full-sized battery is going to be difficult to carry around (and possibly impossible to install).
This is important for certain vehicle types - namely off-road vehicles. Such vehicles tend to consume more fuel (for various reasons), and off-road you may be far from people, let alone a gas station. Plus you may want to do a longer trail (or need to for some reason - maybe a detour forces you off your original route to a longer one) while still being able to get back to civilization at the end. Being able to stop and refuel on the trail is important.
Until battery tech gets to the point where that's no longer the problem, I can't see off-road vehicles being anything but ICE. Perhaps if they could double or more the range of current batteries, that would probably do it - I say that much because off-road vehicles, due to weight, size, and such already drop current batteries to the point where you're lucky to go 75 miles on a charge off-road; though that's only known with some custom conversions - a purpose built off-road electric vehicle might be different.
Which I honestly hope happens - there are a ton of advantages to be gained off-roading by electrics; the instant all-wheel traction control alone would be a game changer - not to mention the sheer torque and torque availability.
One of the big reasons for using the Interstates was the fact that gas was available at reliable intervals. But it could take you 10-15 minutes to get it.
It wasn't until the likes of 7-11, Sheetz, Circle K, and all the other "24-hour convenience stores" started doing gas that getting a fillup was fast and convenient.
How did that full-self-driving trip across the US in 2016 go?