[JasH]

https://carbuzz.com/news/bmw-i3-succ...e-much-cheaper

[baldyloxx]

they may very well become 'classic' in some form...

... theres nothing else like it.

[JasH]

I agree. But it would take many years.

Same with i8.

[ted99]

Buying a used i3 BEV seems like a good bet.

[jmg]

I'm not surprised at all, with battery capacity range increasing there is less incentive to use carbon fiber. I'll be a bit disappointed if the car looks too conventional however. I like the design language of the side windows, floating roofline, and rear of the car

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by JasH

https://carbuzz.com/news/bmw-i3-succ...e-much-cheaper

Long overdue!

I never heard anyone quantifying the weight benefits of carbon-fiber chassis. Or the delta cost. We all assume it's a bit lighter, and much more expensive, but I don't think we know how much weight saving we are gaining, and at what price premium.

The net result, however, has not lived up to the expectations. The lighter weight should have allowed for superior performance and range, but BMW chose to install a puny electric motor that delivers slower acceleration that any car they've sold since 1970s. The range has also been sub-par, but that's largely limited by the short chassis with limited battery storage space.

The entire "city car" obsession has been at the root of BMW i-series disappointment. People who live in cities (BTDT) don't need cars for everyday use - parking is extremely expensive and extremely limited. And it's cheaper to pay for cab 2x/day, then pay for monthly insurance on any car, never mind super-expensive to insure i3. And when city dwellers to want to drive, they want to get out and drive some interesting place a fair distance away, and i3 can't deliver in that regard either.

Alas, there is no indication that BMW has learned anything from it's i3 sales misadventures. i2 is following in the same mold.
i4 will try to copy Tesla Model S template.... a decade too late. I guess, better late than never.


a

[Paul Swanson]

You live in NYC where most people don't even have a drivers license. I live in a town of 100,000 and drive 20-30 miles a day, four or five times to the grocery, bank etc. The BMW is nearly perfect for my use. Easy to maneuver and park, only charge every two or three days. The two nearest towns are about 40 miles away, an easy round trip for the I3. S don't say BMW git it wrong just because it doesn't work for you.

Paul

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by Paul Swanson

You live in NYC where most people don't even have a drivers license. I live in a town of 100,000 and drive 20-30 miles a day, four or five times to the grocery, bank etc. The BMW is nearly perfect for my use.

You are almost right - I lived in NYC for many years, where owning a car is a huge luxury that only ~23% of the Manhattan population can justify. Then we moved out to the 'burbs when kids arrived and demanded more space that could be secured in Manhattan for under 8 figures.

My commute is ~12 miles each way, so very similar to yours.
i3 had been nearly perfect for me for two (2) lease cycles, or 4 years.
In fact, I credit REX with "transitioning" me into the world of EVs, with minimum pain. A jump I may not have taken otherwise. So BMW gets full credit for my EV adoption.

I just wish they had not abandoned development of the i-series, and would have had something in the market for me to consider when the second lease-end arrived.

Originally Posted by Paul Swanson

Easy to maneuver and park, only charge every two or three days. The two nearest towns are about 40 miles away, an easy round trip for the I3.

i3 is still a good 2nd/3rd car.
But our kids grew, and effectively outgrew the midget-speced 2nd row seats in the i3.

Originally Posted by Paul Swanson

S don't say BMW git it wrong just because it doesn't work for you.

Paul,
I don't - BMW sales #s do:
https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-i...orical-charts/

i3 sales have declined every year since it has been introduced to the US market.
For calendar 2018, i3's market share dropped to 1.7% of EVs sold in the US.
It was 3.1% in 2017, 4.8% in 2016, 9.5% in 2015. You get the picture.

i3s did work for me, twice.
It's just that TM3 is now an option, and it works much better, and costs less.

Competition is great!

a

[jmg]

Originally Posted by afadeev

My commute is ~12 miles each way, so very similar to yours.
i3 had been nearly perfect for me for two (2) lease cycles, or 4 years.
In fact, I credit REX with "transitioning" me into the world of EVs, with minimum pain. A jump I may not have taken otherwise. So BMW gets full credit for my EV adoption.

Agreed. With the increased range (120 mi) of my '18 REx, I hardly use the range extender anymore, unlike my old '15 REx (range = 90 mi), which was used once every few weeks. The REx has weened me off the security blanket that is the range extender. I think I'm ready to go all in on an EV for my next commuter. Base Model 3? BMW i2?

Originally Posted by afadeev

I just wish they had not abandoned development of the i-series, and would have had something in the market for me to consider when the second lease-end arrived.

So true. I feel like the i division is in a transitional mode right now. They sunk most of their resources into the iX3 or whatever you call it and the iNext. The i3 is the forgotten middle child. Even the i8 has gotten way behind.

[tankertoad]

While i3 sales have been slipping in the USA, global sales have been steadily increasing so there is little incentive to improve it aside from range (and only incrementally at that).

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Long overdue!

I never heard anyone quantifying the weight benefits of carbon-fiber chassis. Or the delta cost. We all assume it's a bit lighter, and much more expensive, but I don't think we know how much weight saving we are gaining, and at what price premium.

The net result, however, has not lived up to the expectations. The lighter weight should have allowed for superior performance and range, but BMW chose to install a puny electric motor that deliver slower acceleration that any car they've sold since 1970s. The range has also been sub-par, but that's largely limited by the short chassis with limited battery storage space.

The entire "city car" obsession has been at the root of BMW i-series disappointment. People who live in cities (BTDT) don't need cars for everyday use - parking is extremely expensive and extremely limited. And it's cheaper to pay for cab 2x/day, then pay for monthly insurance on any car, never mind i3. And when city dwellers to want to drive, they want to get out and drive some interesting place a fair distance away, and i3 can't deliver in that regard either.

Alas, there is no indication that BMW has learned anything from it's i3 sales misadventures. i2 is following in the same mold.
i4 will try to copy Tesla Model S template.... a decade too late. I guess, better late than never.


a

I think I did a while back... Post #32

https://bmwi.bimmerpost.com/forums/s...ht=bolt&page=2

[Obioban]

Sad. The CF monocoque was one of the main reasons I got this car. Without the Rex, it's a pretty crazy light car by modern standards!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Sad. The CF monocoque was one of the main reasons I got this car. Without the Rex, it's a pretty crazy light car by modern standards!

The only things that matter with EVs are the range and recovery time. While BMW used carbon fiber for the body, the frame was aluminum. Body-on-frame cars, in general, are heavier than a unibody design. The reason is crash safety performance. For the range performance, the i3 carbon fiber design did not help much. Also there are various techniques of carbon fiber construction that trade speed and cost of manufacture for strength and weight. BMWs mass production technique for the i3 body shell did not optimize the strength to weight ratio carbon fiber is capable of. If it did, it would be prohibitively expensive.

[Efthreeoh]

Other manufacturers have shown light-weight EVs can be made using good engineering design and conventional materials. Just because BMW will not use CF next time does not mean the new i3 will be overweight.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The only things that matter with EVs are the range and recovery time. While BMW used carbon fiber for the body, the frame was aluminum. Body-on-frame cars, in general, are heavier than a unibody design. The reason is crash safety performance. For the range performance, the i3 carbon fiber design did not help much. Also there are various techniques of carbon fiber construction that trade speed and cost of manufacture for strength and weight. BMWs mass production technique for the i3 body shell did not optimize the strength to weight ratio carbon fiber is capable of. If it did, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Other manufacturers have shown light-weight EVs can be made using good engineering design and conventional materials. Just because BMW will not use CF next time does not mean the new i3 will be overweight.

Agreed. It was a risky and interesting venture that BMW took with the i3, and I'm glad they did it because honestly it was the first EV that really looked interesting... at least to me. I think the next gen i3 might not be so polarizing and have all the cool-on-paper carbon fiber blended materials, but we can expect better range performance in a more economical package hopefully without losing the charm that we have come to appreciate in these ugly duckling cars.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The only things that matter with EVs are the range and recovery time.

That may be true for you, but it is not for me.

For my values, I just need enough range to handle a normal day's driving. Anything beyond that is just extra weight that I don't want to be driving around. Recovery time (even though it's pretty good on the i3) is also pretty meaningless to me-- I charge it at home, and only at home.

I wouldn't take any modern EV, by any company with any range, on a long road trip-- I'd grab keys to an ICE car every time.

So, extra range beyond normal DD use is useless to me, and comes at the expense of weight-- which is detrimental to the driving experience.

Small, light cars are what I like to drive. I bought the i3 over its competitors because it's well under 3000 lbs (BEV) with a stiff chassis. This was largely enabled by the CF monocoque (along with a dedication to keeping the car light throughout).

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Other manufacturers have shown light-weight EVs can be made using good engineering design and conventional materials. Just because BMW will not use CF next time does not mean the new i3 will be overweight.

It has no competition at the BEV weight, really-- the next lightest car is ~700 lbs heavier AFAIK? Hard pass.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

While BMW used carbon fiber for the body, the frame was aluminum. Body-on-frame cars, in general, are heavier than a unibody design. The reason is crash safety performance. For the range performance, the i3 carbon fiber design did not help much. Also there are various techniques of carbon fiber construction that trade speed and cost of manufacture for strength and weight. BMWs mass production technique for the i3 body shell did not optimize the strength to weight ratio carbon fiber is capable of. If it did, it would be prohibitively expensive.

That's pretty standard? E.g. a McLaren chassis:



Waiting for this to be bolted on:



Agreed that the McLaren doesn't have the battery frame underneath, but that shouldn't be a surprised. The CFRP monocoque is bonded to the frame below, so it absolutely is structural and significantly contributes to chassis stiffness.

100% optimized or not, it's a shit ton lighter than any of its competition.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Obioban

That may be true for you, but it is not for me.

For my values, I just need enough range to handle a normal day's driving. Anything beyond that is just extra weight that I don't want to be driving around. Recovery time (even though it's pretty good on the i3) is also pretty meaningless to me-- I charge it at home, and only at home.

I wouldn't take any modern EV, by any company with any range, on a long road trip-- I'd grab keys to an ICE car every time.

So, extra range beyond normal DD use is useless to me, and comes at the expense of weight-- which is detrimental to the driving experience.

Small, light cars are what I like to drive. I bought the i3 over its competitors because it's well under 3000 lbs (BEV) with a stiff chassis. This was largely enabled by the CF monocoque (along with a dedication to keeping the car light throughout).



It has no competition at the BEV weight, really-- the next lightest car is ~700 lbs heavier AFAIK? Hard pass.



That's pretty standard? E.g. a McLaren chassis:



Waiting for this to be bolted on:



Agreed that the McLaren doesn't have the battery frame underneath, but that shouldn't be a surprised. The CFRP monocoque is bonded to the frame below, so it absolutely is structural and significantly contributes to chassis stiffness.

100% optimized or not, it's a shit ton lighter than any of its competition.

That's good for you. For most of the US automotive market, where the need to take road trips of 300 miles/day are common, buyers have range anxiety.

Your McLaren comparison is stupid, because the i3 is a high-volume production vehicle, and the McLaren basically uses race car fabrication techniques, which are two completely different methods. If the i3 had the same battery size (60KW) to get near the 238 mile range of the Bolt, it would weigh about 200 pounds less than the Bolt, which with use of such an exotic material as CF is not that great of an engineering achievement.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

That's good for you. For most of the US automotive market, where the need to take road trips of 300 miles/day are common, buyers have range anxiety.

Your McClaren comparison is stupid, because the i3 is a high-volume production vehicle, and the McClaren basically uses race car fabrication techniques, which are two completely different methods. If the i3 had the same battery size (60KW) to get near the 238 mile range of the Bolt, it would weigh about 200 pounds less than the Bolt, which with use of such an exotic material as CF is not that great of an engineering achievement.

Most people don't drive more than 100 miles in a day more than a couple days a year. If you only have one car, sure, it needs to be able to meet the 1% of the time usage case. But, just like I don't want to drive a pickup truck every day, even though a couple of days a year I need a pickup truck, the other 99% I don't want to be lugging around an extra 500 lbs of batteries. That kind of weight is ruinous to driving enjoyment-- I wouldn't have one at that point.

The i3's weight is a result of a comprehensive dedication to keeping it light in every aspect of the design. The battery size is one aspect of that.

The McLaren was to show that most the CF monocoque cars out there are, essentially, a passenger cell with frames bolted on (since you were claiming the i3 didn't get the benefit from it).

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Most people don't drive more than 100 miles in a day more than a couple days a year. If you only have one car, sure, it needs to be able to meet the 1% of the time usage case. But, just like I don't want to drive a pickup truck every day, even though a couple of days a year I need a pickup truck, the other 99% I don't want to be lugging around an extra 500 lbs of batteries. That kind of weight is ruinous to driving enjoyment-- I wouldn't have one at that point.

The i3's weight is a result of a comprehensive dedication to keeping it light in every aspect of the design. The battery size is one aspect of that.

The McLaren was to show that most the CF monocoque cars out there are, essentially, a passenger cell with frames bolted on (since you were claiming the i3 didn't get the benefit from it).

It didn't. The i3 range compared to other EVs based on MSRP, compartment size, and weight, is not impressive.

True, most people drive less than 100 miles a day, but they WANT a car that CAN make a road trip of 300+ miles a day and be refueled in 5 minutes. Oh, and cost $30,000, which is why the Camry and Accord sell over 600,000 vehicles combined, per year in the US.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It didn't. The i3 range compared to other EVs based on MSRP, compartment size, and weight, is not impressive.

Certainly MSRP is high, I wouldn't debate that. Though, I don't know anyone's who's paid within $10k of msrp

Weight I would disagree with-- what EV is even close to the weight of a BEV i3?

Compartment size is also pretty great for a small car-- I'm 6'4, and can comfortably sit behind myself. I fit behind myself better in the i3 than in our suburban or 3 series's (less well than behind myself in our 5 series with euro dash (extra leg room)). Or, more importantly for my use case, a child seat in the back and stroller in the trunk is no problem.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

True, most people drive less than 100 miles a day, but they WANT a car that CAN make a road trip of 300+ miles a day and be refueled in 5 minutes. Oh, and cost $30,000.

People are dumb. See: crossovers, turbos, etc. Compromising your experience 99% of the time so you can be better off 1% of the time isn't a good deal, imo.

Even the quick refueling isn't really thinking through the situation. With the i3, there's no regular refueling. Every time you get in the car in the morning, it's full. If I do need to do charge away from home, it feels long at 20-30 minutes. But, think of all the time I've banked not getting gas at a gas station for months and months beforehand (5 minutes, 1-2 times per week). The individual recharge takes longer than a gas fill, but they happen so rarely that the net time spend refueling/recharging your car is much, much lower. If I average 7.5 minutes/week refilling a gas tank, that means I could do an on the road recharge once a month and not be out any additional personal time beyond an ICE car.

... and, again, for a road trip where I need 300 miles/refill/300 miles/refill/etc, I'll just take an ICE car. No need to compromise my experience the other 99% of the time.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Certainly MSRP is high, I wouldn't debate that. Though, I don't know anyone's who's paid within $10k of msrp

Weight I would disagree with-- what EV is even close to the weight of a BEV i3?

Compartment size is also pretty great for a small car-- I'm 6'4, and can comfortably sit behind myself. Or, more importantly for my use case, a child seat in the back and stroller in the trunk is no problem.

You are just not going to get my point about range vs. vehicle weight vs. size.

No one has paid within $10K of the $40K+ MSRP, because the i3 is not a desirable automobile.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You are just not going to get my point about range vs. vehicle weight vs. size.

No one has paid within $10K of the $40K+ MSRP, because the i3 is not a desirable automobile.

I'm saying your point is silly. The i3 is sufficiently large for all my needs as a 4 seater (which aren't insignificant, since I'm 6'4) and has way more than enough range for all my DD needs. Size/weight/range in excess of what I need is a downgrade, not an upgrade (as it comes at the expense of weight). A cheaper (heavier) manufacturing process and increased range through a larger (heavier) battery will result in me wanting a future i3 less.

This may not be true for you, but your beliefs are not representative of 100% of the population. That's why I disagreed with your original statement ("The only things that matter with EVs are the range and recovery time.") I value driving dynamics above most else, and a reasonably safe, functional 4 seater, that weighs ~2800 lbs and has instant accelerator response was what drew me to the i3 in the first place. I think it's unreasonable to expect to take any EV on a road trip any time soon, and I'm not willing to make my experience worse the other 99% of the time for that edge case.