Class action lawsuit against BMW i3

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cool, you two have clearly got my point.

"range extender" implies that you keep doing what you are doing.

"limp home" implies exactly that, they won't leave you stranded...uncomfortable, but notstranded.

Mt old man was not dumb by any stretch but if he had "120 miles on battery" and then "50 miles on gas", he would plan on using every single one of them...if he was told he would be stuck at 35MPH for that 50 miles, he'd have never though of that as part of his range.

CARB regulations over the last 10-15 years for ZEV is a mess. They changed it many times to accommodate various manufactures' capability in producing ZEV.

BMW probably just made i3 to satisfy ZEV quota with CARB, and customers are stuck with inadequate performance after battery went dead.

 

[JHZR2]

I'm a believer in the concept. The issue really is that when the vehicle starts getting under any heavy load that will deplete the battery, the engine should be on.

A range extender's use profile should not be based upon only working at ultra low SOCs. That's more strenuous on the battery and less useful. The range extender should be implemented such that the engine is at its optimally designed point for thermal and battery charging efficiency, so it offsets the charge decrease of the propulsion load is over 34hp, and is at an optimal load and charging point to increase battery SOC if load is less than 34. LikevANY vehicle, when the "tank" gets too low (in this case the battery), you stop to charge. The car could then devote all 34hp to charging the battery, which is a decent amount of power and better than many car charging stations.

This car isn't about cruising cross country at 80 MPH, or making great 0-60 numbers. It's about being a runabout with restricted range and speed, but max efficiency overall on both electric (grid and self made), and liquid fuel (which is MUCH more energy dense than a battery), without a reliance on a charging station.

Want more capability with this concept? Buy a bolt. Price this right and it's a good runabout car.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


"range extender" implies that you keep doing what you are doing.


No, that's your branding of what it means. That term has no specifically defined meaning, unless BMW specifically states that it means full capability. If they said that explicitly, then I'm wrong and would admit to it. But the term "range extender" doesn't mean anything in particular otherwise.

My grandfather bought a vw beetle in the late 50s or early 60s. It didn't even have a fuel gauge. You switched to the reserve tank when you ran out. Was that a "range extender"?

I'm not seeing any basis "at law" that a "range extender" implies full performance with seamless operation for x miles.

I'd also suspect that if one stopped and allowed this engine to charge the battery awhile, it would indeed extend full performance range. Again, I see now basis that range extension is defined as absolutely seamless.

There's no way I'd buy a tesla because there's no way to convert liquid fuel to battery charge onboard. Plug in hybrids of various biasing and capability are a far better idea, and this type of design is a great approach if one actually takes the time to make an informed decision related to its capabilities.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Shannow


"range extender" implies that you keep doing what you are doing.


No, that's your branding of what it means. That term has no specifically defined meaning, unless BMW specifically states that it means full capability. If they said that explicitly, then I'm wrong and would admit to it. But the term "range extender" doesn't mean anything in particular otherwise.

My grandfather bought a vw beetle in the late 50s or early 60s. It didn't even have a fuel gauge. You switched to the reserve tank when you ran out. Was that a "range extender"?


I wasn't using it as a dictionary definition, but more what a "reasonable person" would take the wording as meaning..."reasonable person" being what the legal bods look at in cases with ambiguity.

So do YOU think it's a "range extender", or offers "limp home" following exhaustion of the batteries ?

Which to YOU tells the "reasonable person" what the purpose is ?

If I was BMW, I'd have this clearly demonstrated in a demo vehicle on the test drive...yes, this is available, this is how it drives.

Did it halve your grandad's car's performance, or was it able to maintain full performance...didn't drop it down to 2 cylinders or anything ?

It was a replacement for a fuel guage...unless you are also implying that BMW don't include the state of battery charge in information relayed to the driver and they have to "switch to reserve" when they unknowingly run out.

 

[JHZR2]

So let's put this in a slightly different picture.

You buy a tesla. You run out of battery away from a charging station, what happens? That's right, you stop.

Now, someone drives up with an X kW DC generator in their trunk, and you hook the charging plug up ad add some energy to the battery.

That person has to leave, but now you've got a few percent of energy. Is that a range extender? It sure extended the range the car could go.

We know it takes about 200-300Wh/mile to run an eV. Therefore a 34hp so figure 25kW and 20kW after losses) power. 20kW for an hour means you could supply about enough power to do what you want. After all, you're not driving this car a sustained 100mph. But we also know that peaks for continued high speed will certainly be over 20kW.

So the trick is that controls should not prevent the engine from turning on until it's too late, as they do. At 5% soc, conduction voltage is too low to support the power output needed, and 20+ whatever the battery can do isn't enough.

Either you run the engine with much better controls, to benefit it at opportune times and you look at it as a truly an optimized phev, or you look at it as an ev with limited range and a DC generator in the trunk, per my example above.

Apparently the bureaucracy and art history majors making policy related to technical and scientific matters screwed up option #1.

 

[Shannow]

I agree wholeheartedly.

But to have the IC engine kick in at anything other than the last minute makes it a hybrid, and not ... LOL ... zero emissions.

The fact that they call them zero emissions proves your point entirely about policy makers.

 

[dishdude]

Or you could just buy a Volt and not worry about any of this.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I agree wholeheartedly.

But to have the IC engine kick in at anything other than the last minute makes it a hybrid, and not ... LOL ... zero emissions.

The fact that they call them zero emissions proves your point entirely about policy makers.

This is the real problem.

BMW designed/engineered the i3 as a compliant vehicle to satisfy ZEV quota with CARB.

They could design a much better battery/ICE combination, but it will not be a zero emission vehicle according to CARB and BMW will not have credit they need, then they have to buy carbon credit from Tesla.

Chevy Volt is a much better plug in hybrid than i3, the battery distance is a little shorter but transition to ICE is seamless and performance doesn't servery decrease, and the driving distance is much longer between gasoline fill up.

 

[Shannow]

I like Toyotas hybrid version, but would choose the volt...if I could afford the $60k+ pricetag.

 

[Cujet]

No i3 thread is complete without this picture:

 

[Jarlaxle]

*FACEPALM*