Official BMW i3 thread

[SanDust]

It is possible the first batch of cars will all have the REx option. Doesn't make that a standard.

When the Leaf came out Nissan really pushed the SL model. That was the default model. You could certainly get a Model SV but that wasn't the model which was most available.

BMW is doing the same thing here but with a different set of features. They have to guess whether customers will want the extender when they build the car, and they obviously have concluded that most people will want it. That seems right to me because doubling your range for $2000 strikes me as a no-brainer. Without the range extender it will be hard to sell this car given you can lease cars with the same range, and in at least one case, far better looks, for $199/month. Or you can pay the same price and get a larger RAV4 with more range. (This analysis is not entirely original: http://www.plugincars.com/bmw-i3-40000-too-expensive-127163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false. However, adding the extender puts the i3 into a different range class which will better allow it to compete.

Don't know why they bothered with the non-extender option. Maybe it's a CARB compliance thing?

 

[TomMoloughney]

First journalist that I know of that actually got to drive one. He's in Australia: http://news.drive.com.au/drive/new-car-reviews/first-drive-review-bmw-i3-20130710-2pp3q.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

When the Leaf came out Nissan really pushed the SL model. That was the default model. You could certainly get a Model SV but that wasn't the model which was most available.

First Leafs were special ordered according to what individuals wanted. SL got pushed because QC was only available in SL and EVProject Leafs had a special SL-e model (with free QC).

 

[edatoakrun]

First journalist that I know of that actually got to drive one. He's in Australia: http://news.drive.com.au/drive/new-car-reviews/first-drive-review-bmw-i3-20130710-2pp3q.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...The i3 is the first road-going BMW model to be based around a body structure constructed entirely out of carbon fibre...

Pricing is yet to be announced, although officials suggest the i3 will land here at around $60,000. The range extender option, something BMW’s studies suggest won’t be required by many potential customers but will clearly be sought after for peace of mind, will likely add a further $5000 at least...

Carbon fibre construction is probably not cheap.

Multiply AUD prices by ~0.91 for USA dollar equivalent.

I still have doubts that the USA price will be only $34,500, even after the after tax credit, or that the x engine option will only cost ~$2k.

 

[Boomer23]

First journalist that I know of that actually got to drive one. He's in Australia: http://news.drive.com.au/drive/new-car-reviews/first-drive-review-bmw-i3-20130710-2pp3q.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...The i3 is the first road-going BMW model to be based around a body structure constructed entirely out of carbon fibre...

Pricing is yet to be announced, although officials suggest the i3 will land here at around $60,000. The range extender option, something BMW’s studies suggest won’t be required by many potential customers but will clearly be sought after for peace of mind, will likely add a further $5000 at least...

Carbon fibre construction is probably not cheap.

Multiply AUD prices by ~0.91 for USA dollar equivalent.

I still have doubts that the USA price will be only $34,500, even after the after tax credit, or that the x engine option will only cost ~$2k.

You may well be correct, but imported cars have always been much more expensive in Australia and New Zealand than in other markets.

 

[evnow]

I still have doubts that the USA price will be only $34,500, even after the after tax credit, or that the x engine option will only cost ~$2k.

Volt costs $60k in Australia.

I'm fairly sure the 42k price before tax credit (35.5k after) is entirely possible in the US.

 

[TomMoloughney]

From the BMW press release yesterday:

Optional range extender acts as a spare tank.
If desired, the BMW i3 is also available with a range-extender engine, which maintains the charge of the lithium-ion battery at a constant level while on the move as soon as it dips below a certain value. Performing this role is a 650cc two-cylinder gasoline engine developing 34 hp/25 kW, which is mounted immediately adjacent to the electric motor above the rear axle. Specifying the range extender has no effect on luggage capacity: the 2.4 gallon (nine liter) fuel tank is located in the front section of the car.

The combustion engine drives a generator to that produces electricity. It is brought into play as required, responding optimally to match the load and running extremely efficiently. Driving in ECO PRO mode or ECO PRO+ mode can increase the range of the BMW i3, in each case by up to approximately 12 percent. And if the range extender is specified, the BMW i3 will be able to travel more than 60 miles (100 km) further before refueling. The BMW i3 is the world’s first electrically powered car to offer the option of a range extender engine used exclusively to generate electric power.

Link to full press release can be found on my i3 blog http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2013/07/bmw-i3-press-release.html

 

[palmermd]

60miles on 2.4 gallons of gasoline does not sound all that efficient. I do like that they are not reducing battery capacity to install the ice. Seems like a nice design. I wonder if they are under promising on the range extension.

 

[TomMoloughney]

60miles on 2.4 gallons of gasoline does not sound all that efficient. I do like that they are not reducing battery capacity to install the ice. Seems like a nice design. I wonder if they are under promising on the range extension.

In other places I've seen them say it will travel "up to 90 additional miles". However I don't think they put a huge emphasis on the gas mileage of the REx because it's not going to be used like a Volt where you may drive hundreds of miles on gas. The range extender on the i3 is really meant to get you that extra 10 -30 miles without needing to call a tow truck. Yes, you can drive further but the longer you drive I'd imagine the 25kW engine will have difficulty keeping up with your power needs. I'd imagine the first 10-20 miles you can drive however you want without much performance difference because of the buffer but after than you'll start to feel the reduced power unless you've been driving slowly already.

I wonder when the REx turns on? @ 20%SOC? 10%? Hopefully the driver can turn it off if they know they can make their destination on battery alone.

 

[edatoakrun]

60miles on 2.4 gallons of gasoline does not sound all that efficient. I do like that they are not reducing battery capacity to install the ice. Seems like a nice design. I wonder if they are under promising on the range extension.

In other places I've seen them say it will travel "up to 90 additional miles". However I don't think they put a huge emphasis on the gas mileage of the REx because it's not going to be used like a Volt where you may drive hundreds of miles on gas. The range extender on the i3 is really meant to get you that extra 10 -30 miles without needing to call a tow truck. Yes, you can drive further but the longer you drive I'd imagine the 25kW engine will have difficulty keeping up with your power needs. I'd imagine the first 10-20 miles you can drive however you want without much performance difference because of the buffer but after than you'll start to feel the reduced power unless you've been driving slowly already.

I wonder when the REx turns on? @ 20%SOC? 10%? Hopefully the driver can turn it off if they know they can make their destination on battery alone.

Or turn it on, if the driver knows they will need extra kW for a long high-speed grade.

The vital specification that I have never seen, is what CARB regulations requires as the BEVx charge-sustaining lower limit.

It could even be that, the ICE operation will be more restricted in California, due to the BEVx requirements, and more within the driver's control in regions not subject to BEVx regulations.

From the BEVx thread:

So, it looks like CARB has named this concept the BEVx, and got it partially correct, IMO:

...Staff expects BEVxs to play a longer-term role than TZEVs [ transitional zero emission vehicle; most commonly a plug-in hybrid PHEV] because of their improved zero emission mileage potential. These vehicles would be particularly well suited to use of low upstream GHG fuels that might be more expensive, since the predominant operating cost would be offset by relatively low-cost electricity. In addition to potential for emerging alternative fuel use, there is an opportunity to explore engine technologies that are advantageous but otherwise unsuitable for application in conventional vehicles.

Engine technology applied to existing PHEVs is derived from small conventional production gasoline engines, but highly specialized APUs for BEVxs may eventually spin off and evolve in completely different directions. Future BEVxs with highly specialized engine and fuel technologies could be optimized to drive cost, weight, size, and emissions down and make these specialized BEVx APUs suitable for more affordable and therefore more widespread application. Lotus Engineering and other automotive design firms have been developing hybrid-specific APUs and have several unique concepts under development already...

...It was suggested during the hearing that such a vehicle might even deliver more all-electric miles than a battery-only electric vehicle, as the availability of the range-extending engine could preclude drivers reserving battery charge to ensure they actually make it home.

The BEVx would have reduced performance while operating in APU (auxiliary power unit) mode—i.e., while using the range extender to find a charging location. Most of these vehicles are expected to have a zero-emission range of 80 miles or greater...

This vehicle has substantially more range than currently announced PHEVs, ARB staff noted, with electric range comparable to full function BEVs and will probably require ground-up BEV design...

But CARB is wrong, IMO, if, as suggested, it requires that the driver be prevented from engaging the engine before discharging the battery, limiting the RE engine use to “limp-home” mode, only:

...ARB staff suggested that the BEVx market may appeal to drivers who would not otherwise consider a BEV with the same range. Since staff considers these vehicles full function BEVs with short range APUs, it stressed the importance of having the minimum range for eligibility be equivalent to full function BEVs in the marketplace.

Basic criteria for these vehicle include:

1. the APU range is equal to or less than the all-electric range;

2. engine operation cannot occur until the battery charge has been depleted to the charge-sustaining lower limit;

3.a minimum 80 miles electric range; and

4.super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) and zero evaporative emissions compliant and TZEV warranty requirements on the
battery system...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/01/bevx-20120129.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=10&p=170254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SanDust]

Carbon fibre construction is probably not cheap.

Something like $70-$80 per pound. Very expensive. Mostly because it takes so much energy to produce. (Ironic). However, from a systems perspective you recapture some of those costs from savings attributable to being able to downsize other components like the brakes, battery, and motor.

 

[surfingslovak]

Carbon fibre construction is probably not cheap.

Something like $70-$80 per pound. Very expensive. Mostly because it takes so much energy to produce. (Ironic). However, from a systems perspective you recapture some of those costs from savings attributable to being able to downsize other components like the brakes, battery, and motor.

That's an astute observation. BMW has focused a lot of energy on carbon fibre manufacturing, presumably spurned on by the Quandt family. Much like Nissan, they like to talk about their investment in new technology, but a lot of the specifics are unknown or undisclosed. The price per pound of carbon fibre would be one of them. You might want to have a look at this recent article from DER SPIEGEL (pardon the poor machine translation):

The BMW i Project: Full Speed Ahead Into The Unknown

 

[RegGuheert]

You might want to have a look at this recent article from DER SPIEGEL (pardon the poor machine translation):

The BMW i Project: Full Speed Ahead Into The Unknown

Thanks! Interesting article! I hadn't really taken note of the carbon fiber innovation in the i-series. The airplane industry has been making the transition to composite materials over the past 30 years or so, so I guess at some point it was bound to happen in automobiles.

I found this comment interesting:

Incomprehensible that BMW invested so much money in "stillbirths" as electric cars. BMW has already (7-series) disgraced with the hydrogen technology in its cars.

As someone who is a big fan of battery-electric vehicles who is not overly enamoured with the idea of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, I find it interesting that someone apparently equates the two in their mind.

 

[evnow]

Something like $70-$80 per pound. Very expensive. Mostly because it takes so much energy to produce. (Ironic). However, from a systems perspective you recapture some of those costs from savings attributable to being able to downsize other components like the brakes, battery, and motor.

No surprise BMW's carbon fiber plant is in eastern WA which has very cheap hydro electricity (also a lot of excess wind which is idled for want of demand). Ofcourse, the fact that Boeing is nearby probably gives them additional demand for the product.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

60miles on 2.4 gallons of gasoline does not sound all that efficient. I do like that they are not reducing battery capacity to install the ice. Seems like a nice design. I wonder if they are under promising on the range extension.

In other places I've seen them say it will travel "up to 90 additional miles". However I don't think they put a huge emphasis on the gas mileage of the REx because it's not going to be used like a Volt where you may drive hundreds of miles on gas. The range extender on the i3 is really meant to get you that extra 10 -30 miles without needing to call a tow truck. Yes, you can drive further but the longer you drive I'd imagine the 25kW engine will have difficulty keeping up with your power needs. I'd imagine the first 10-20 miles you can drive however you want without much performance difference because of the buffer but after than you'll start to feel the reduced power unless you've been driving slowly already.

I wonder when the REx turns on? @ 20%SOC? 10%? Hopefully the driver can turn it off if they know they can make their destination on battery alone.

Having full control of the REx would be optimal. If you know you are on a long journey with little option to pick up a charge, you might want the ICE to kick in at 80% SOC, not 20%. You might want it to run in order to charge the battery when you are having a meal, and you might want it to run while you are picking up a slow L1 or L2 charge. Is it cold outside, and there is an ice rain sticking to your windshield? Kick on the REx for a quick defrost! I'd love to have the little REx, but I'd want full control of the unit in order to extend its usefulness.

 

[TonyWilliams]

To qualify as "ZEV" and "HOV access" in California, it has to operate a certain way. You won't have control.

 

[SanDust]

That's an astute observation. BMW has focused a lot of energy on carbon fibre manufacturing, presumably spurned on by the Quandt family.

The article was interesting. I wasn't surprised that there was a lot of resistance internally to the i3. I was surprised that they were surprised that the processes for using the carbon fiber proved challenging. I would have thought that would be a given.

One interesting aspect of this story is that BMW and Tesla have taken completely opposite approaches here. BMW has really gone "Rocky Mountain Institute" with a focus on mass reduction. Tesla is ignoring mass and just solving the issues with brute force fueled by better/more batteries. I think that Tesla is right because mass is not that critical for electric cars. In yet another irony, since mass is absolutely critical to ICE vehicles, the gear heads at BMW will need carbon fiber to meet the CO2 standards more than the "i group" needs it for their electric vehicles.

I do think, however, that the last place you'd want carbon fiber is in the exterior body panels. That requires really high grade expensive stuff. You could use carbon fiber in underbody panels or inner panels and get some significant mass reduction for a decent price rather than spending megabucks trying to get carbon fiber on the outer panels. Or just go the Tesla route, make the vehicle a little bigger and add a few kWh to the battery pack. Would be cheaper and you'd have more electric range at a lower price point.

Ofcourse, the fact that Boeing is nearby probably gives them additional demand for the product.

Good point but my take is, rather than selling to the aerospace industry, BMW could probably have gotten all the carbon fiber they needed at much lower cost from recycling the waste from the aerospace industry. Regardless of the power source, heating to 2000 degrees for an extended period of time is expensive.

 

[evnow]

One interesting aspect of this story is that BMW and Tesla have taken completely opposite approaches here. BMW has really gone "Rocky Mountain Institute" with a focus on mass reduction. Tesla is ignoring mass and just solving the issues with brute force fueled by better/more batteries. I think that Tesla is right because mass is not that critical for electric cars.

I think each company is doing what they "can" and what would benefit their company's other products.

BMW would benefit from lower mass since they want to sell performance cars. So carbon fiber makes sense in the long term.

Nissan wants to be a mass producer - so they just concentrated on price. They also had enough money to pour into custom batteries.

Tesla didn't have the money - so they had to rely on mass produced consumer batteries. They made up for the terrible thermal characteristics with extra software and engineering. One extra benefit was that they got higher density batteries. Ofcourse, now Tesla buys so many of those "consumer" batteries that manufacturers are willing to customize the batteries for them.

I think each strategy can be successful in its own way - until they start producing cars that directly compete with each other. Then, it would be interesting.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

To qualify as "ZEV" and "HOV access" in California, it has to operate a certain way. You won't have control.

Another fine example of our inept government at work. Perhaps someone will hack the REx i3 to "fix" the California imposed limitations. It really can't be that difficult.

 

[TonyWilliams]

To qualify as "ZEV" and "HOV access" in California, it has to operate a certain way. You won't have control.

Another fine example of our inept government at work. Perhaps someone will hack the REx i3 to "fix" the California imposed limitations. It really can't be that difficult.

It's not inept at all. They could have just said oil = bad. They didn't; instead, they made particular criteria to qualify the same as a LEAF or Tesla with oil augmentation.