Official BMW i3 thread

[Berlino]

One thing, though. John states that the i3REx counts as a BEVx, but as I read the BEVx requirements the i3REx failed to meet it, as the range on the REx (78 miles) is greater than the AER (72 miles), even with the (stupid) 1/2 gallon smaller tank.

Is the 72-mile AER only how far you can go before the REx kicks in, or does it include as well the last all-electric phase after the gas runs out?

If it's the former, the true AER could be >= 78 miles, so that might account for the i3 REx fulfilling the requirements.

 

[TomMoloughney]

One thing, though. John states that the i3REx counts as a BEVx, but as I read the BEVx requirements the i3REx failed to meet it, as the range on the REx (78 miles) is greater than the AER (72 miles), even with the (stupid) 1/2 gallon smaller tank.

Is the 72-mile AER only how far you can go before the REx kicks in, or does it include as well the last all-electric phase after the gas runs out?

If it's the former, the true AER could be >= 78 miles, so that might account for the i3 REx fulfilling the requirements.

It's rated at 72 miles per charge without counting the final 6.5% SOC you would have once the REx ran out of gas. I believe the reason BMW reduced the gas tank from 2.4gal to 1.9gal was because that just barely pushed the electric range beyond the gas range for CARB BEVx consideration.

One thing I learned is CARB doesn't use the EPA electric range and gas mileage range as the final determination. If they did, the gas range on the REx would be slightly longer than the all electric range. (74.1 miles to 72 miles) I spoke to a BMW manager that was involved in the BEVx certification and they told me CARB uses their own testing/formulation to arrive at the certification, they didn't simply use the EPA's 72 mile EV range and 39 MPG that is on the Monroney window sticker. So maybe they do then add in the remaining 6.5 % you have after you were to run out of gas, or perhaps they use some other formulation, but they did indeed certify the i3 REx as a BEVx.

 

[TomT]

It's too bad that we have such rules - and manufacturers willing to exploit them... Otherwise, we wouldn't have such things as the ridiculously hobbled Rex...

So maybe they do then add in the remaining 6.5 % you have after you were to run out of gas, or perhaps they use some other formulation, but they did indeed certify the i3 REx as a BEVx.

 

[MrIanB]

I get my extended trial a week from this Monday.

Ian B

 

[TomMoloughney]

It's too bad that we have such rules - and manufacturers willing to exploit them... Otherwise, we wouldn't have such things as the ridiculously hobbled Rex...

So maybe they do then add in the remaining 6.5 % you have after you were to run out of gas, or perhaps they use some other formulation, but they did indeed certify the i3 REx as a BEVx.

True Tom, but if we didn't have CARB we might not even have EV's today. It's far, far from a perfect system, but we are making progress. Six or seven years ago you couldn't buy an EV at all. If you wanted one you had to build your own or try to find a used RAV4 EV and pay more for it than it sold for new. I like the idea of BEVx, I just hope they adjust the rules a bit to allow the vehicle to offer more utility. I suspect many LEAF owners would love something like this as an option, especially if the restrictions become relaxed a bit - which I completely believe they will be, and soon.

 

[KJD]

True Tom, but if we didn't have CARB we not not even have EV's today. It's far, far from a perfect system, but we are making progress. Six or seven years ago you couldn't buy an EV at all. If you wanted one you had to build your own or try to find a used RAV4 EV and pay more for it than it sold for new. I like the idea of BEVx, I just hope they adjust the rules a bit to allow the vehicle to offer more utility. I suspect many LEAF owners would love something like this as an option, especially if the restrictions become relaxed a bit - which I completely believe they will be, and soon.

As a LEAF owner I would tend to agree with that. Install a 6 gallon gas tank and a manual hold button and it would be a tempting trade up. As it sits right now there is just not enough there to make me want to switch.

 

[adric22]

It's too bad that we have such rules - and manufacturers willing to exploit them... Otherwise, we wouldn't have such things as the ridiculously hobbled Rex...

I sort of understand why they did it that way. I mean, we've all heard stories of people buying C-Max Energi or Prius PHV just so they can get into the HOV lane but never actually charge the car. I am guessing the idea is that with the i3 Rex, you theoretically could run it on gasoline every day but it would be very inconvenient. Still, I think had they given us at least 1 more gallon of fuel tank, I don't think it would have changed the situation much in this regard, but would have made the Rex a lot more useable.

 

[GRA]

It's too bad that we have such rules - and manufacturers willing to exploit them... Otherwise, we wouldn't have such things as the ridiculously hobbled Rex...

I sort of understand why they did it that way. I mean, we've all heard stories of people buying C-Max Energi or Prius PHV just so they can get into the HOV lane but never actually charge the car. I am guessing the idea is that with the i3 Rex, you theoretically could run it on gasoline every day but it would be very inconvenient. Still, I think had they given us at least 1 more gallon of fuel tank, I don't think it would have changed the situation much in this regard, but would have made the Rex a lot more useable.

Indeed, that's why they make you run the battery down first, to force people to use it. Although, considering how big the battery is and how much you're paying for the car, ISTM that anyone would use it anyway; if you're just looking for a way to get a SO HOV sticker for commuting there are much cheaper and lighter options. I think the Energis are probably balanced on the tipping point; any more battery and you'll definitely charge it, much less and it may not be worth people's time.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... if we didn't have CARB we not not even have EV's today.

So true. We also would have half the world's major auto manufacturers running for the hydrogen door, either !!!

All those first generation RAV4 EV's that people were previously paying too much money for seven years ago also wouldn't be here without CARB.

It would be interesting if Tesla could have even got off the ground.

 

[MrIanB]

Can't wait for winter weather to see how it impacts the battery and the range.

Ian B

 

[mkjayakumar]

my first i3 sighting. I waited for sometime to see if the owner shows up and have a chat, but no luck.

 

[TomMoloughney]

It would be interesting if Tesla could have even got off the ground.

I'm inclined to think not Tony. It's been well documented that the sale of their ZEV credits generated a lot of much needed capitol for them early on. Plus, would Daimler have invested the 50 million at the critical point that they did if they didn't want Tesla to provide them with B-Class powertrains? I bet they would have sat on the sideline and hoped that Tesla went under like the rest of the automakers would have been happy to witness. In any event, even if they did manage to survive they wouldn't be in the position they are in today, and would likely be living hand to mouth to stay in business.

 

[TomT]

I don't refute that at all! It is very true! What I am questioning is the silly rule that allowed the Rex to even exist as currently implemented, and BMW for taking advantage of it.

True Tom, but if we didn't have CARB we might not even have EV's today.

 

[TomMoloughney]

I don't refute that at all! It is very true! What I am questioning is the silly rule that allowed the Rex to even exist as currently implemented, and BMW for taking advantage of it.

True Tom, but if we didn't have CARB we might not even have EV's today.

I agree Tom. However this is a new class of vehicle and I kinda understand the poor initial implementation. I know what they were trying to accomplish here was to encourage manufacturers to make an electric car that would be nearly always driven in pure electric mode, yet have the auxiliary power unit so the operator wouldn't have to worry about being stranded, or needing to go a few more miles than the electric range could offer. There have been many reports of Volts coming back from 3 year corporate leases and the onboard data shows the vehicle was never plugged in at all. That is something that CARB wants to make sure doesn't happen with BEVx cars.

Many potential first time BEV buyers cited the concern of running out of juice as a primary reason for not buying an EV and the APU completely alleviates this issue. However in an effort to make sure the consumer didn't drive it in gas mode any more than they absolutely had to they created restrictions that are just too onerous. I do believe the issues we are seeing i3 REx will serve the purpose of breaking down some of these restrictive barriers because CARB can look at this and see that perhaps the restrictions need to be rewritten so the vehicles aren't power restricted to the point where they are unsafe.

I know everybody is complaining about how it works now but I see this as part of the process of getting it right. I like the idea of the BEVx, and think other manufacturers will follow with vehicles in this class. Hopefully by then CARB will have rethought the qualifications using what has been learned with the i3 and allow for a more robust performance when needed.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Many potential first time BEV buyers cited the concern of running out of juice as a primary reason for not buying an EV and the APU completely alleviates this issue.... I like the idea of the BEVx, and think other manufacturers will follow with vehicles in this class.

Here's my thinking on the issue. In the early days of "no EV fast charging", I think the APU concept might have been a great idea for the first LEAF's. Heck, Phil Sadow famously built a trailer with a Capstone turbine on it as his LEAF APU. But, in almost 2015, with thousands of DC charging stations around the world, I see this concept as inhibiting continued growth of the very thing that will ultimately alleviate range anxiety without oil.

It was common for the extremely thrifty early adopters of the LEAF to "JustDriveThePrius(TM)" any time the potential cost may have been even a penny more to DC charge than drive their LEAF. Obviously, that doesn't help support the charging infrastructure.

I had a fellow recently tell me that he "hated" public fast charging, and we should all just drive our spare oil cars (you know, the cars that all rich US homeowners have) if a trip needed public charging. This is a common core belief of the "old school" era EV advocates. Obviously, that doesn't support infrastructure, either.

I'm not opposed to the Volt / BMW i3 concept of a serial generator. But, I recognize that at least in the more progressive parts of the USA, the push should be on completing the charging station build out before the public funds and attention is drawn to the "next thing", hydrogen. Cars that still burn oil and therefore don't need public charging quite obviously will not endear a next generation of advocates to make this happen.

Without robust, purposeful public fast recharging (like Tesla), we a stuck in a time warp. EV's can never really take on the oil cars (and by that, I mean mass ubiquitous adoption), and cars like the Volt don't have a quick charge port, and likely won't have a fast charge port in the future.

From 2015-2020 will be the "make-it-or-break-it" for hydrogen, so in my mind, I'm hoping that we have that built out charging infrastructure by 2020 that means the average Joe wouldn't think twice about an EV. There would be no need for oil, or generators, except in the areas that aren't going to buy an EV anyway (my home state of Montana).

 

[TomMoloughney]

Tony, There is nothing I'd like more to see (plentiful DCQC locations) but the reality is it isn't here yet. You live in the best area of the country for it, and it still isn't enough. It's virtually non-existant in the majority of the US. I agree that perhaps having options (PHEV's) may indeed slow down the proliferation of DCQC (because they artificially reduced urgency), but we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't today. Until a couple months ago, there wasn't a single DCQC within a couple hundred miles of me, let alone within driving distance.

I'll be the first to dump the range extender model when it's practical. I totally believe it's just a stop-gap measure for the immediate future and long range EV's as well as ubiquitous DCQC infrastructure are imminent; but right now, the only option is a $80,000 Tesla or one of the ~80 mile EV's. I am in fact working hard to push for increased DCQC here in the NorthEast and I believe we have finally made some headway (announcements to come soon!). Your RAV4 EV isn't available in NJ and I'm not willing to fight Toyota every time the thing needs service - and you know as well as I do they will indeed fight me. Plus, I don't want to give them any of my money with how anti-EV they are!

 

[BestPal]

Many potential first time BEV buyers cited the concern of running out of juice as a primary reason for not buying an EV and the APU completely alleviates this issue.... I like the idea of the BEVx, and think other manufacturers will follow with vehicles in this class.

Precisely. Aside from sticker price issues this is the main scare for not entering EV world and it still remains the main hurdle to overcome... drum roll... at a reasonable entry price. And range extender offers a solution at a reasonable price. Sure, 250mile EV range solves the problem, but at a prohibitive cost TODAY.

I had a fellow recently tell me that he "hated" public fast charging...

That fellow is still here watching and is still telling you the same thing Let's make one thing clear: public DC charging at today's charging speeds is just as much of a patch to EV range problem as is the Range Extender. Just a different approach. As you said yourself, until we get into FAST charging (at least a testa supercharger level or faster), public DC charging of today is still a patch and will remain as such.

If you want widespread public adoption of EV's, I certainly do, then a solution to the fears above (what if I run out) such as: "ohhh.. not a problem, if you're running low, just drive out of your way, find a DC station, and sit there for 30 minutes and pay 10x premium for electricity used" is NOT a solution for general public. It's not a good sales speech at a dealership. No matter how many times you repeat that it is. It just won't work in a long run. Long range and charging at home or at work will. Preferably automatic wireless/induction charging. People want to get where they need to go and they want to drive there NOW. Not in 30 min. Some may have that kind of time on their hands in the middle of a trip, not everyone does. I see REx for what it is: a good patch until long range EV becomes a reasonably priced option for general public. Let's try to think of it as a gradual transition, a step in EVolution if you will

 

[TonyWilliams]

I had a fellow recently tell me that he "hated" public fast charging...

That fellow is still here watching and is still telling you the same thing Let's make one thing clear: public DC charging at today's charging speeds is just as much of a patch to EV range problem as is the Range Extender. Just a different approach. As you said yourself, until we get into FAST charging (at least a testa supercharger level or faster), public DC charging of today is still a patch and will remain as such.

If you want widespread public adoption of EV's, I certainly do, then a solution to the fears above (what if I run out) such as: "ohhh.. not a problem, if you're running low, just drive out of your way, find a DC station, and sit there for 30 minutes and pay 10x premium for electricity used" is NOT a solution for general public. It's not a good sales speech at a dealership. No matter how many times you repeat that it is. It just won't work in a long run. Long range and charging at home or at work will. Preferably automatic wireless/induction charging.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind any, so I'll respond for those following along.


1) Yes, we need faster DC charging... many times faster. But, that won't happen if we don't have that first generation of chargers to pave the way.... e_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n. With 25kW to 135kW today, and several times that in the future.

It becomes somewhat easier to do faster charging with larger battery packs, which will happen as batteries become cheaper per kWh, lighter per kWh, and generally have more stored kWh capacity per car. You have to start somewhere, and gasoline isn't the start of anything. It's a band-aid.

Gasoline augmentation makes sense for folks like Tom who have virtually no infrastructure around, or somebody in Montana which might not have EV infrastructure in my lifetime. That's just not the case in San Diego, or southern California, where we live.


2) I don't know that I have EVER suggested that home charging shouldn't happen. What the "old guard" EV folks, like you, seem to think concerning inhibiting public charging as a greater good is absolutely silly. Even more than that, it's just dumb. Pure and simple.

Everybody who can charge at home overnight should do so, and they should also charge as fast as can be done at public stations when needed.

Some folks that don't have that place to park with electricity overnight still need to power the car somewhere, so we either leave them out of the EV market altogether, or we send them to a place to charge as fast as possible. Obviously, you'd offer them gasoline or "Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)". The state of California wants to offer them hydrogen. Heck, at least everybody has an answer ;-)


3) Any public charging instills curiosity and some confidence to the largely unwashed masses just by physically being there. So-called long range batteries (more than 100 miles?) doesn't get me to places that normal San Diego folks actually drive to; Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, etc. unless I'm able to charge somewhere. Even a 300 mile Tesla Model S can't do that.


4) I don't believe supporting a gasoline model of "range extension" versus a public DC charging "range extension" is the correct concept, nor will today's gasoline answer benefit the future DC charging one. We are so far apart on that concept that it's really silly to belabor. It's a fundamental issue. Certainly, the easy answer is gasoline, I don't doubt for one second. I guess I've never picked "easy" in life.


5) Wireless charging is fine at home. It's not much different than plugging in except it:

a- costs more
b- weighs more on the car
c- isn't foolproof, any more than just plugging in
d- will NEVER match the conductor efficiency of just plugging in (that's just simple physics)

...but, some folks will still like it. Great. It's not really an either / or thing. Folks will indeed have wireless charging, however I expect the bulk to be plugged in overnight somewhere. Even if that is reversed, it isn't something I care to spend much thought on. It's a non sequitur to fast public DC public charging or overnight charging.


6) I'm going to venture into the unknown with this bullet point, and suggest that you do not live in a 100% electric household, like I do. If I'm right, then clearly you're not vested in quite the same way I am in an EV future. I actually did drive to San Francisco a few weeks ago, and while it wasn't exceptionally painful, it most obviously would have been easier with a petrol car. We have a long way to go.

But, if I can't do it, I'd never ask YOU to do it, which is why I work toward making public acceptance of EV's easier, and not use an oil scapegoat and/or intentionally want to harm EV infrastructure.

It's OK if you're not 100% oil free at home. I find that the most staunch, most opinionated "old guard" EV folks aren't either, which makes it easy for me to understand your thought processes.

 

[BestPal]

I don't know that I have EVER suggested that home charging shouldn't happen. What the "old guard" EV folks, like you, seem to think concerning inhibiting public charging as a greater good is absolutely silly. Even more than that, it's just dumb. Pure and simple.

I NEVER suggested inhibiting public charging.
Driving from San Diego to San Francisco in a Leaf or some other 80 mile range EV? What a self-torturing and fascinating masochistic lunacy that is!
Sure, you say
...
if I can't do it, I'd never ask YOU to do it,
...
I appreciate you dedication to EV (I actually really do, we do need fanatics in the society), but a lot of people on here have lives and we are discussing real world practical i3 with REx that is helping to broaden EV market. For you to dismiss range extenders as a class at this point in the game and asking general public to do what you do... is not exactly realistic and I'm being very nice choosing the words.

 

[mkjayakumar]

ohhh.. not a problem, if you're running low, just drive out of your way, find a DC station, and sit there for 30 minutes and pay 10x premium for electricity used" is NOT a solution for general public

if you're running low, just drive out of your way, find a DC station -- agreed it is a pain
and sit there for 30 minutes - agreed, that is a lot of time to just sit and wait for re-fueling

pay 10x premium for electricity used - Now this, I don't agree. What do you expect the same 10c/kWh that you pay at home? That is the premium you pay for the convenience to continue your journey in your BEV. None of you complain why Starbucks coffee is 10 times more expensive than what it takes to make it at home. Unlike the gas owners, EV owners are going to use these public charging only about say 10% of their total miles driven in a year ? And they can't pay a premium for that 10% for the convenience factor. I find that mindset completely unacceptable.