[afadeev]

I've got exactly 20K miles out of my 19" set of all-season Bridgestones.
20,017 miles, to be exact, 18,464 of them in BEV mode, the other 1,553 miles (7.7%) on REX.

I have a few more road trips coming up, and I picked up a puncture in the right rear tire (sealed with Dynaplug), so figured it might as well be now.

Tires were at the wear bars since about 17.5K miles, and the new set was destined to go in before weather turns ugly later in the year. When they finally came off at 20K miles, the outside shoulders were bold on fronts and rears. At the wear bars in the middle and on the inside of the thread.

Got a new set from TireRack for $596.06 shipped and delivered. Plus $80 to mount and balance, and I'm good for the winter, and through the lease return the next spring.

This is the cheapest set of tires I got for any of my cars in over 20 years!

a

[ORIGIN M.]

Wow, not bad!

Regeneritive breaking kills tires, but sure beats the service needs of any ICE car.

[Doenermann]

That's a bit heavier wear than I saw on my 19" AS. Just turned my lease in at 16,900 and the lowest was 4/32". Very spirited cornering when the weather was nice, nothing terribly unusual other than that.

Managed to drive 87% electric over 21 months.

[ORIGIN M.]

Not to thread jack, but what did you get to replace it?

Originally Posted by Doenermann

That's a bit heavier wear than I saw on my 19" AS. Just turned my lease in at 16,900 and the lowest was 4/32". Very spirited cornering when the weather was nice, nothing terribly unusual other than that.

Managed to drive 87% electric over 21 months.

[-c-]

Yep closing in on 20k got 19k right now and still running the 20" summer sport tires, their in desperate need of replacement but good enough for the Chicago summer, now as soon as November hits new tires it is!

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Doenermann

That's a bit heavier wear than I saw on my 19" AS. Just turned my lease in at 16,900 and the lowest was 4/32". Very spirited cornering when the weather was nice, nothing terribly unusual other than that.

Managed to drive 87% electric over 21 months.

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

Regeneritive breaking kills tires, but sure beats the service needs of any ICE car.

My daily commute is over a hilly terrain, and I enjoy the challenge of maximizing kinetic energy by carrying speed through downhill turns without kicking in the regen breaking. If I do it well and there are no cars ahead of me, I usually induce some tire squeal, thus the higher front tire wear on the outside shoulders.

As for the rears, I blame my wife.
She flogs it like she stole it.

a

[Efthreeoh]

Wow. So considering the i3 is an econobox for all intensive purposes, most other manufacturer's econoboxes probably get 50,000 to 60,000 out of a set of tires. At $600 per set I calculate the abnormally high tire wear of the i3 costs about 18,000 in lost miles (2.5 extra sets of tires) as compared to an econobox averaging 30 MPG and gas at 2.50 a gallon. That doesn't seem very economical to me.

[Barbera335]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Wow. So considering the i3 is an econobox for all intensive purposes, most other manufacturer's econoboxes probably get 50,000 to 60,000 out of a set of tires. At $600 per set I calculate the abnormally high tire wear of the i3 costs about 18,000 in lost miles (2.5 extra sets of tires) as compared to an econobox averaging 30 MPG and gas at 2.50 a gallon. That doesn't seem very economical to me.

I would have to agree, that is terrible wear. I easily got 75,000 miles out of the tires on my commuter Chevrolet Volt and I am a very aggressive driver. Plus the i3 tires are expensive. I paid 420 dollars for a new set of Pirelli Cinturato P7s for my car.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by Barbera335

I would have to agree, that is terrible wear. I easily got 75,000 miles out of the tires on my commuter Chevrolet Volt and I am a very aggressive driver. Plus the i3 tires are expensive. I paid 420 dollars for a new set of Pirelli Cinturato P7s for my car.

Their $489 from tire rack, depending on if you need the 19"

The 20" is more.

Their price is not bad considering their made for only 1 car fitment. As the i3 sales numbers aren't that high.

The fact that I have the 20" summer tires with softer rubber 20k miles works for me as that's all I would get out of my high performance Michelin super sports on my 135is before I traded it in on the i3.

Just curious as to why you think the i3 is an econo box? Nothing about the car says economy to me....... materials alone don't qualify for economy.. Shoot even the wheels are forged vs cast.... Lots of money went into this vehicle.

Get in a real economy car and see the difference.

[remlemasi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Wow. So considering the i3 is an econobox for all intensive purposes, most other manufacturer's econoboxes probably get 50,000 to 60,000 out of a set of tires. At $600 per set I calculate the abnormally high tire wear of the i3 costs about 18,000 in lost miles (2.5 extra sets of tires) as compared to an econobox averaging 30 MPG and gas at 2.50 a gallon. That doesn't seem very economical to me.

There is nothing econobox about the i3. It is very expensive when you compare it to true EV econoboxes like the Fiat 500e and the Chevy Spark EV.

Premium materials, carbon fiber construction (first vehicle to implement this in mass production)

The only thing "economical" about the i3 is its energy efficiency, and for early adopters of new technology, energy efficiency is not cheap. Think solar panels, LED bulbs, high-efficiency windows, A/C, water heater, etc etc.

Putting aside those of us who got insane lease deals this past half-year due to poor sales, no one in the target market for an i3 is looking to save money compared to the alternatives. Many better options out there in that regard.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by remlemasi

There is nothing econobox about the i3. It is very expensive when you compare it to true EV econoboxes like the Fiat 500e and the Chevy Spark EV.

Premium materials, carbon fiber construction (first vehicle to implement this in mass production)

The only thing "economical" about the i3 is its energy efficiency, and for early adopters of new technology, energy efficiency is not cheap. Think solar panels, LED bulbs, high-efficiency windows, A/C, water heater, etc etc.

Putting aside those of us who got insane lease deals this past half-year due to poor sales, no one in the target market for an i3 is looking to save money compared to the alternatives. Many better options out there in that regard.

Well said !

[Efthreeoh]

It's amazing how easily BMW fanboys get offended. The i3 is in the (expensive) econobox class. It is meant to be an economy car simply because its MPGe says it is. That is the purpose of it, to conserve fuel. Relax about the build specs. But really, recycled plastic, eucalyptus wood, and hemp fiber? The thing is built like a truck - body on frame. I've driven one, the interior is different but it doesn't raise the i3 to Luxury car status; it reminded me of an Aloft hotel room... different, but still just a hotel room to sleep in. The only thing special is the carbon fiber - snore.

But my point is if the i3 is an economy car, using tires on it that only last 20,000 miles makes it (a) not very economical cost wise, and (b) not very environmentally friendly. So it doesn't burn carbon at the tail pipe, but it puts down 3-times the rubber on the road as compared to a conventional econobox?

Hummm....

[remlemasi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It's amazing how easily BMW fanboys get offended. The i3 is in the (expensive) econobox class. It is meant to be an economy car simply because its MPGe says it is. That is the purpose of it, to conserve fuel. Relax about the build specs. But really, recycled plastic, eucalyptus wood, and hemp fiber? The thing is built like a truck - body on frame. I've driven one, the interior is different but it doesn't raise the i3 to Luxury car status; it reminded me of an Aloft hotel room... different, but still just a hotel room to sleep in. The only thing special is the carbon fiber - snore.

But my point is if the i3 is an economy car, using tires on it that only last 20,000 miles makes it (a) not very economical cost wise, and (b) not very environmentally friendly. So it doesn't burn carbon at the tail pipe, but it puts down 3-times the rubber on the road as compared to a conventional econobox?

Hummm....

I am unashamedly a BMW fanboy, but I was in no way defending BMW or trying to rationalize my purchase (lease), just stating facts.

Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox):

"An econobox is a United States pejorative slang term for any of a series of small, boxy, fuel-efficient economy cars with few luxuries and a low sticker price. Econobox mostly denotes a stripped out, poverty specification, built down to a price, entry level version of a conventional car of the era..."

Again, only real link is the fuel-efficient part. One can argue "small, boxy" as well, but this is just how the designers interpreted an urban/city "megacar," whatever that means. Would you consider Tesla or Fisker an econobox just because it is fuel efficient and the MPGe says it is?

Regarding premium materials: we can just agree to disagree there.

Regarding body-on-frame: sure, one could argue that is a technical classification, but what does this have to do with econobox/premium materials/luxury status? If you're suggesting that the car handles like the typical pickup-truck, then -- with all respect -- I call BS on you ever having driven one.

Not arguing against the tires lasting long enough. 20k is abysmal. My Michelin Pilot Super Sports last longer than that. Also not trying to say that the car is super luxurious in any way; Hyundais have more standard features. Just countering your econobox claim.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by remlemasi

I am unashamedly a BMW fanboy, but I was in no way defending BMW or trying to rationalize my purchase (lease), just stating facts.

Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox):

"An econobox is a United States pejorative slang term for any of a series of small, boxy, fuel-efficient economy cars with few luxuries and a low sticker price. Econobox mostly denotes a stripped out, poverty specification, built down to a price, entry level version of a conventional car of the era..."

Again, only real link is the fuel-efficient part. One can argue "small, boxy" as well, but this is just how the designers interpreted an urban/city "megacar," whatever that means. Would you consider Tesla or Fisker an econobox just because it is fuel efficient and the MPGe says it is?

Regarding premium materials: we can just agree to disagree there.

Regarding body-on-frame: sure, one could argue that is a technical classification, but what does this have to do with econobox/premium materials/luxury status? If you're suggesting that the car handles like the typical pickup-truck, then -- with all respect -- I call BS on you ever having driven one.

Not arguing against the tires lasting long enough. 20k is abysmal. My Michelin Pilot Super Sports last longer than that. Also not trying to say that the car is super luxurious in any way; Hyundais have more standard features. Just countering your econobox claim.

Yea funny how they claim fanboy whenever you tell them that your opinion differs from their own.

Yea mines a 55k dollar econobox! Might as well bought a 5 series !

But I didn't, their boring, the interior of the i3 made me feel like I had something special that I haven't felt in a long time, as a designer myself I was driving something that I had inspired to for so long but so many car companies where to gun shy to do.

Guess some don't understand modern luxury! Their are many forms of luxury. Some of which probably differ from what you think is luxury, and that's fine.
Seems so many people all think luxury is a bunch of Edwardian crap and adorned with rich lacquered mahogany.

I live in Chicago and the apartments their can be In the millions and their polished concrete and stainless steel, I love it, different customer base and different tastes. I love truth in materials ! The i3 has a leather covered dash real wood and a plant fiber substrate, it was a design statement, most luxury cars have a leather seat and vinyl covered dash made to look like leather. My 70k dollar x5 had that and Doesn't mean it's not luxury but I find the i3 has a far from economy interior.

It's a wast of time trying to defend the i3 to closed minded people that don't look out side of their own ignorance. ( not directed at you, but just stating what I've seen)

I'll close my comment with I bought the car because I thought it was cool and future forward, something finally new, not to save trees or to save on gas, I see what the designers envisioned and applaud the new use of materials and the risks they took.
I'll burn the tires and I don't give a shit, but the car is not an economy car and if you believe that then your entitled to that opinion but it's a really poor one.

And the saying "It is meant to be an economy car simply because its MPGe says it is."
Has got to be the silliest thing I've heard in a while.


Just my opinion Tee hee

[Efthreeoh]

I said the car is in the econobox class and it's an expensive econobox. Yep that's an oxymoron, but I was making a point with it. The i3 boxy, small, has a hatchback, and is purposefully design as a high-fuel efficient automobile. The reason it is expensive is because it is expensive to produce not because it's some high-end luxury automobile. Body-on-frame design is an expensive design to produce, the carbon-fiber shell is expensive to produce, the frame is aluminum which is more expensive than steel, it uses a lithium-ion battery which is expensive to produce, and lastly, BMW doesn't build many of them, which makes it expensive to produce because the amortization of design and production occurs over a small number of cars. A Ford Focus has almost as much luxury amenities as does the i3. Any real difference in luxury tech is software and/or cheap electronic hardware modules.

Put a badge-less i3 next to a badge-less Nissan Cube and any average non-auto enthusiast passerby, if questioned, would put both cars in the same class. Most people don't wear Roundel glasses.

What is oxymoronic is a car that is supposed to be economical to the owner and to the earth uses tires at a rate 2.5 times the average car of it's EPA-rated class.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I said the car is in the econobox class and it's an expensive econobox. Yep that's an oxymoron, but I was making a point with it. The i3 boxy, small, has a hatchback, and is purposefully design as a high-fuel efficient automobile. The reason it is expensive is because it is expensive to produce not because it's some high-end luxury automobile. Body-on-frame design is an expensive design to produce, the carbon-fiber shell is expensive to produce, the frame is aluminum which is more expensive than steel, it uses a lithium-ion battery which is expensive to produce, and lastly, BMW doesn't build many of them, which makes it expensive to produce because the amortization of design and production occurs over a small number of cars. A Ford Focus has almost as much luxury amenities as does the i3. Any real difference in luxury tech is software and/or cheap electronic hardware modules.

Put a badge-less i3 next to a badge-less Nissan Cube and any average non-auto enthusiast passerby, if questioned, would put both cars in the same class. Most people don't wear Roundel glasses.

What is oxymoronic is a car that is supposed to be economical to the owner and to the earth uses tires at a rate 2.5 times the average car of it's EPA-rated class.

You can say that about most any car then, the i3 isn't that small. Same footprint as a one / two series and tall as hell. Fiat 500 and smart cars are small. Minis used to be small lol.

They all have 4 wheels and headlights and all that crap. I guess the question is what to you is luxury or premium?

The i3 is premium, same as mini and any BMW product, not economy hands down. .

This is a new from the ground up design with a new from the ground up tire design as well, only one of their kind made for only one car, rarely are the first of anything new to market perfect and as the design and product matures as two will the miles on the tires I'm sure. Through tread design and rubber compound I'm sure they will gain miles but also they may never be a 50 or 60k mile tire just because their so narrow.

Sorry I got so defensive but as a designer I'm sensitive to people's opinion about products as we design them every day. And sometimes people just don't get it. The designer of this car went to Art center in California and a fan of mid century modern design and some of that is captured in the car, not for everyone but for us few it's a breath of fresh air. . Hey man We're all friends and enthusiasts. Just opinions differ from one another.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by -c-

You can say that about most any car then, the i3 isn't that small. Same footprint as a one / two series and tall as hell. Fiat 500 and smart cars are small. Minis used to be small lol.

They all have 4 wheels and headlights and all that crap. I guess the question is what to you is luxury or premium?

The i3 is premium, same as mini and any BMW product, not economy hands down. .

This is a new from the ground up design with a new from the ground up tire design as well, only one of their kind made for only one car, rarely are the first of anything new to market perfect and as the design and product matures as two will the miles on the tires I'm sure. Through tread design and rubber compound I'm sure they will gain miles but also they may never be a 50 or 60k mile tire just because their so narrow.

Sorry I got so defensive but as a designer I'm sensitive to people's opinion about products as we design them every day. And sometimes people just don't get it. The designer of this car went to Art center in California and a fan of mid century modern design and some of that is captured in the car, not for everyone but for us few it's a breath of fresh air. . Hey man We're all friends and enthusiasts. Just opinions differ from one another.

I'm good with all of it; no harm meant. I didn't say the i3 design was bad. I can see it as a breath of fresh air in the realm of automotive design. However, some of it is "green" marketing if one is honest about it. I'm not impressed with the engineering and never have been; I think the Chevrolet Volt is far more of an engineering statement than the i3.

I really was just commenting on the tire wear. With modern engineering tools, tires are modeled for performance way before production of them begins, all aspects of performance including tire wear; the i3 tire is a poorly engineered design.

If you bought the car for the future-forwardness and clean-slateness of it then that's as legit as any other reason in my mind. I bought a Hummer H3T mostly for the design, the performance and practicality of it was secondary (except for the water fording capability of it, which I need), so I understand your point of view.

Peace.

[-c-]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm good with all of it; no harm meant. I didn't say the i3 design was bad. I can see it as a breath of fresh air in the realm of automotive design. However, some of it is "green" marketing if one is honest about it. I'm not impressed with the engineering and never have been; I think the Chevrolet Volt is far more of an engineering statement than the i3.

I really was just commenting on the tire wear. With modern engineering tools, tires are modeled for performance way before production of them begins, all aspects of performance including tire wear; the i3 tire is a poorly engineered design.

If you bought the car for the future-forwardness and clean-slateness of it then that's as legit as any other reason in my mind. I bought a Hummer H3T mostly for the design, the performance and practicality of it was secondary (except for the water fording capability of it, which I need), so I understand your point of view.

Peace.

Yea they definitely need to improve the mileage of the tire for sure and hopefully in time they get their .

[remlemasi]

Purely from a tire design standpoint (not that I'm a tire designer or anything), you would think that low rolling resistance (LRR / Ecopia) would mean long wearing as well as that is generally the case with other high-mileage and high-efficiency tires.

I think the major explanation is that brand new tread only starts at 9- and 10/32" for the all-seasons (the summer tires start out at 8/32" with a softer compound!). Most tires are in the 11- to 12/32" range. That cuts out over 10-15% of the mileage right there. Perhaps with the skinny widths, any more tread would make for squishy handling.

Anyway, I think we're all on the same page. I was just a little bent up over the use of that certain word . I think I was stuck in debate-mode from earlier in the week!

[-c-]

Originally Posted by remlemasi

Purely from a tire design standpoint (not that I'm a tire designer or anything), you would think that low rolling resistance (LRR / Ecopia) would mean long wearing as well as that is generally the case with other high-mileage and high-efficiency tires.

I think the major explanation is that brand new tread only starts at 9- and 10/32" for the all-seasons (the summer tires start out at 8/32" with a softer compound!). Most tires are in the 11- to 12/32" range. That cuts out over 10-15% of the mileage right there. Perhaps with the skinny widths, any more tread would make for squishy handling.

Anyway, I think we're all on the same page. I was just a little bent up over the use of that certain word . I think I was stuck in debate-mode from earlier in the week!

Yep I was right their with ya!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by remlemasi

I am unashamedly a BMW fanboy, but I was in no way defending BMW or trying to rationalize my purchase (lease), just stating facts.

Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econobox):

"An econobox is a United States pejorative slang term for any of a series of small, boxy, fuel-efficient economy cars with few luxuries and a low sticker price. Econobox mostly denotes a stripped out, poverty specification, built down to a price, entry level version of a conventional car of the era..."

Again, only real link is the fuel-efficient part. One can argue "small, boxy" as well, but this is just how the designers interpreted an urban/city "megacar," whatever that means. Would you consider Tesla or Fisker an econobox just because it is fuel efficient and the MPGe says it is?

Regarding premium materials: we can just agree to disagree there.

Regarding body-on-frame: sure, one could argue that is a technical classification, but what does this have to do with econobox/premium materials/luxury status? If you're suggesting that the car handles like the typical pickup-truck, then -- with all respect -- I call BS on you ever having driven one.

Not arguing against the tires lasting long enough. 20k is abysmal. My Michelin Pilot Super Sports last longer than that. Also not trying to say that the car is super luxurious in any way; Hyundais have more standard features. Just countering your econobox claim.

I took an i3 for a test drive while I was at BMW of Sterling (VA) some time in the summer of 2015, waiting for my parts order to get put together. My comment about body on frame construction was about production cost, not how the car handles. I'm sure BMW's choice of construction has to do with the use of carbon fiber in a production automobile and with an eye towards crash repair-ability. But speaking of handling... I'm not sure how important a good handling EV is with an 80-mile range. The i3 is really meant to be a city car; it doesn't have enough range to take it to places outside of a city where one can take advantage of handling on roads that make driving (a BMW) pleasurable. 20,000 tread life says short tread depth and soft compounds. Why that's necessary on an EV like the i3 is perplexing.

And by the way I currently have 3 BMWs in the fleet a 1997 Z3, 2006 E90, and a 2008 Z4 Coupe. 2016 is marks my 28th year of BMW ownership. Cumulative mileage on the 4 BMWs I've owned is north of 760,000 miles. So you can call me a Fanboy of the Marque, but I don't wear myopic Roundel glasses.

In my opinion, everything but the price of the i3 says econobox to me. You even stated that Hyundai's have more standard features than the i3. I'm pretty sure that in most people's minds, Hyundai (Elantra) translates as econobox. Cars like the Civic, Escort, Elantra, Sentra, all defined the term "Econobox" in the 1980's. All current modern versions of those cars are pretty decent and not cheaply made but to me are still of the Econobox class. And most of those cars in today's sizes have about 90 cubic feet of passenger volume whereas the i3 sits at 84. I didn't mean any offense by the term and only used it to make a point about the dismal tire wear the i3 has compared to cars in it's same EPA-size class.

I'll drop it now. Just countering your BS claim.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

20,000 tread life says short tread depth and soft compounds. Why that's necessary on an EV like the i3 is perplexing.

Until this debate started, I took my 20K i3 tire mileage lifespan as well within the expectation. Part of the reason is that, like <Efthreeoh>, I've owned BMWs since 90s, and have gotten used to buying a new set of tires for my "fun" cars every year.

In retrospect, that 12-20K BMW tire lifespan average is the wrong benchmark for the i3.

It doesn't really qualify as a "fun" car, in the sense that I had not, and will never take it to track, autoX, or any other traction challenging event. So 20K miles from a i3 all-season tiers is ... underwhelming.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The i3 is really meant to be a city car; it doesn't have enough range to take it to places outside of a city where one can take advantage of handling on roads that make driving (a BMW) pleasurable.

Whether the range is 80 miles for BEV, 150 miles for REX, or 180 miles for gen2 REX, i3s do drive everywhere - from back roads to highways. And they are exposed to driving environments where emergencies can arise at all speeds, so having a good handling car to execute emergency avoidance maneuvers at all speeds is what I expect from a BMW.

i3 falls far short in that category, and it's handling is more on par with econo-boxes than any BMWs I've ever driven.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

In my opinion, everything but the price of the i3 says econobox to me.

I would augment the above statement to add styling.

i3 does have distinctive exterior and interior styling. That is not to say that it is overwhelming beautiful, but unlike your average bland econo-box, i3's design stands out.

a