[mbanck]

Originally Posted by BMWGirlFL

Baffled with you! Spiegel article online now (6/27) but pay only. https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2020/2...545/index.html. Economy related?

From just looking at that excerpt, it looks like another article (Weil is the prime minister of the german state of lower saxony, and as such, as that state is a major VW shareholder, part of its board of directors).

EDIT: Ok, so when searching for "Mandred Schoch" you indeed seem to get linked to the above. If you look for "Wirtschaft" on https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2020-27.html you can see that the first item/page consists of three independent small news item, which SPIEGEL always puts at the beginning of the section. So the preview text is from the first item, which is separate to the one concerning BMW.

But that also means that it's probably just a small news item, not a longer interview or anything else of deep substance.

About the paywall, german media has been trying to monetize the electronic version of their print articles for a long time. So they have some online articles (which are free) and some online version of their "SPIEGEL+" articles (which are paywalled). Interestingly, they sometimes put up the english translation of really important articles/interviews for free, but I doubt this will happen here.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BSquared+

FWIW, all auto-makers can try and improve on the performance of EV, but for the up and coming generation, it won't matter. The real(long-term) future will belong to who-ever ends up owning the increasingly smaller market for privately-owned autos, and drives the Uber and rental vehicle business. Kids, for the most part, could care less about owning an expensive item that sits in the garage or on the street for 20hrs a day and more about their I-phones.

Uber-like business models will own the market and auto-makers, if they were honest, see it coming. Gotta travel more than 100-200miles? That's what they make helo's and planes for.

You've heard of a car company called... GM. This is exactly what GM has been investing in for the past 5 years.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

I'm not taking the position that BMW shouldn't develop an all-electric platform. I just think people need to realize that this initiative WILL pull resources away from everything else the brand produces, and is the antithesis of the "save the manuals" and "lighter and more minimal" crowd.

So your comment is interesting in the view of what the Ford Motor Company is doing with the Mustang Mach E. Ford basically dropped all its car models, retained its CUVs and SUVs, and pickups. Dropping the car models was strategic to develop the E-Stang. As far as my interest in EV, the Mustang Mach E is the only one that holds my interests at the moment. It's modern-looking, yet not in an electric spaceship way. Still mostly traditional inside and out, with a good product mix at the trim level. Lower-range faster-models to a reasonable priced RWD big battery architecture and 300-mile range, with a respectable 5-second 60-time.

True total-cost-of-ownership for EVs is still a decade away from competing with ICE, especially considering all EVs are range and charging-time limited and ICE is not. IMO Tesla is actually making the switch to EV difficult. It leads the EV industry for sure, the "tech" is not that impressive to people who want an affordable car at a resonable price. EVs are great for people who can afford expensive cars at a more than 50-cents per-mile price. Most of the market buys cars that cost 30-cents per-mile to operate.

[BMWGirlFL]

Originally Posted by mbanck

From just looking at that excerpt, it looks like another article (Weil is the prime minister of the german state of lower saxony, and as such, as that state is a major VW shareholder, part of its board of directors).

EDIT: Ok, so when searching for "Mandred Schoch" you indeed seem to get linked to the above. If you look for "Wirtschaft" on https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/index-2020-27.html you can see that the first item/page consists of three independent small news item, which SPIEGEL always puts at the beginning of the section. So the preview text is from the first item, which is separate to the one concerning BMW.

But that also means that it's probably just a small news item, not a longer interview or anything else of deep substance.
Maybe related: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/globa...ainable-future

About the paywall, german media has been trying to monetize the electronic version of their print articles for a long time. So they have some online articles (which are free) and some online version of their "SPIEGEL+" articles (which are paywalled). Interestingly, they sometimes put up the english translation of really important articles/interviews for free, but I doubt this will happen here.

I share your impressions! Google would translate but not worth buying. Also noticed Reuters didn't connect their article to BMWG.DE as company news. Maybe related: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/globa...ainable-future

[mbanck]

Originally Posted by BMWGirlFL

I share your impressions! Google would translate but not worth buying. Also noticed Reuters didn't connect their article to BMWG.DE as company news. Maybe related: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/globa...ainable-future

I went to a local newsstand to have a look, it's really just a small news article, maybe 1/4th of a page, with no additional information to what's in the Reuters article.

I guess SPIEGEL provides a preview of their print issue content to newswire services and Reuters considered this newsworthy enough to pick it up. Probably correct because it got reposted all over the e-mobility websites etc.

[pikcachu]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So your comment is interesting in the view of what the Ford Motor Company is doing with the Mustang Mach E. Ford basically dropped all its car models, retained its CUVs and SUVs, and pickups. Dropping the car models was strategic to develop the E-Stang. As far as my interest in EV, the Mustang Mach E is the only one that holds my interests at the moment. It's modern-looking, yet not in an electric spaceship way. Still mostly traditional inside and out, with a good product mix at the trim level. Lower-range faster-models to a reasonable priced RWD big battery architecture and 300-mile range, with a respectable 5-second 60-time.

True total-cost-of-ownership for EVs is still a decade away from competing with ICE, especially considering all EVs are range and charging-time limited and ICE is not. IMO Tesla is actually making the switch to EV difficult. It leads the EV industry for sure, the "tech" is not that impressive to people who want an affordable car at a resonable price. EVs are great for people who can afford expensive cars at a more than 50-cents per-mile price. Most of the market buys cars that cost 30-cents per-mile to operate.

In a couple of years or sooner Evs will reach parity and then some. And thats ignoring all oil leaks from gaskets that fail after 50k miles, water pumps, etc

Ices are not gonna get any cheaper but batteries will a lot.

Just wait till tesla comes out with a 20k range small car and the it's game over

It won't be long before evs get more range than ices. Just look at the spec for the 600+ mile roadster.

[willjames]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I daily drive a Model 3 Performance but I'll be the first to tell you that the performance of EVs, at least with Tesla, is far from exciting in any way. Of course you're missing the sound of an engine but everybody already knows that. The more important thing is the falling power curve of the electric motor + single speed transmission, the faster you go, the weaker the acceleration is. This is nice because I feel zero incentive to drive much higher than the speed limit but it's also very boring. Everyone brags about EV torque "From" 0 RPM but they don't mention that it really delivers maximum acceleration G forces "At" 0 RPM and it drops down very quickly above 40 MPH.

Also, Teslas accelerate very quickly when fully charged but the performance falls off a cliff as the battery charge level drops down. I leave my house every morning at 90% charge and if I floor it, the car throws me hard back into my seat and makes me laugh every time. I get to work at about 80% charge and it's a hair slower than it was when I left home. By the time I return home after work, I'm down to about 70% and it's much slower than it was in the morning. By the time you get down around 50% charge, it feels downright slow compared to what you've become used to when the car is fully charged. That truly sucks and it's why I'd never consider a car like this for track use or purposely take it out in the canyons for a fun drive. Not all EVs are like this, it's a choice Tesla has made to keep the overal range high and achieve other goals but it keeps my car firmly in the "excellent daily commuter" camp for me.

I have not driven a Taycan yet but my friends who have tell me that the Porsche approach is not like Tesla at all, hopefully BMW would follow in Porsche's footsteps and prioritize acceleration potential when the car is already at higher speeds and also keep maximum acceleration available for longer as the battery charge level drops.

The Taycan is awesome see the video below. The video mentions the high voltage architecture, hence the reason it's so expensive.

[V-Eight]

To me, Tesla has an own strong positioning and identity. In my opinion, in California, they don't care about what the others are doing.

Should BMW develop their own electric platform? Off course they should, if they want to compete beside the others.

ICE engines (my beloved ICE engines) are through their last "hurra", the future is electric, no question about this fact.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by pikcachu

In a couple of years or sooner Evs will reach parity and then some. And thats ignoring all oil leaks from gaskets that fail after 50k miles, water pumps, etc

Ices are not gonna get any cheaper but batteries will a lot.

Just wait till tesla comes out with a 20k range small car and the it's game over

It won't be long before evs get more range than ices. Just look at the spec for the 600+ mile roadster.

So there is physics involved here. Any type of battery has physical limitations as to its energy density and rate of charge; generally gains in those areas are inverse to affordability.

[pikcachu]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So there is physics involved here. Any type of battery has physical limitations as to its energy density and rate of charge; generally gains in those areas are inverse to affordability.

sure but eventually advances trickle down to lower tiers...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by pikcachu

sure but eventually advances trickle down to lower tiers...

You're not understanding what I said. There are physical limitations to all designs and materials. Based on your logic, in the past 120 years of the development of the internal combustion engine it's efficiency in converting the energy in gasoline (or diesel) should be near 99%. It's not of course, because it's not physically possible. To get another, say 75% more efficiency from ICE makes it unaffordable to use as a power source.

[pikcachu]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You're not understanding what I said. There are physical limitations to all designs and materials. Based on your logic, in the past 120 years of the development of the internal combustion engine it's efficiency in converting the energy in gasoline (or diesel) should be near 99%. It's not of course, because it's not physically possible. To get another, say 75% more efficiency from ICE makes it unaffordable to use as a power source.

Well not quite. Ice will never be very efficient about 40% is lost due to heat.

And over the 100 years or so, they did get quite more efficient.

But the point is electric cars are in their infancy and battery technology, capacity, discharge rate etc should increase much faster than improvements of ices

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by pikcachu

Well not quite. Ice will never be very efficient about 40% is lost due to heat.

And over the 100 years or so, they did get quite more efficient.

But the point is electric cars are in their infancy and battery technology, capacity, discharge rate etc should increase much faster than improvements of ices

In the 1970's Ford was investigating building engines out of ceramic materials. Ceramic engine blocks, pistons, cylinderheads. Prototypes worked. The idea was high-silica ceramics could be formulated to withstand higher operating temperatures than iron and aluminim, which extracted more power from the higher cylinder temperatures and pressures. Simply put, there was less energy lost to waste heat.

The problem was the ceramic engines would have been expensive to produce and there was little market acceptance for an engine made from the same base materials as dishes, which easily break as everyone knows. Today, with the market willing to accept more complex (read as expensive) technologies to solve fuel consumption and emissions challenges (less waste heat means lower emssions) perhaps a ceramic engine makes marketable sense. Yet the new marketing issue is people are now convinced buring carbon fuel is bad for the planet. Shifting the emssions from the tail pipe to smokestack is an easy sell.

But the point is electric cars are not all that new. The electric drivetrain is more efficient than ICE because there is less heat loss and virtiually no idle time, coupled with the different torque charateristics of electric motors. Engineers and scientists have been at the battery development business for 40 years, the gains have been slow and expensive. But as I've stated there is a technological-cost wall somewhere out in front of them.

[clee1982]

About time