Electric M test car pics & interview with Dirk Häcker, BMW M Head of Development

[Teutonic]

Originally Posted by jmack123

Bro, you are a simple-minded fool. Look at the growth of Tesla. It is LITERALLY one of the fastest growing companies. And EVERY MAJOR vehicle manufacturer is making EVs. There is your EVIDENCE. Oh wait, you are smarter than all the major manufacturers? Sorry dawg, you are too slow to have this convo with me. And I work in IT, so I know plenty about emerging tech. The irony is you are the simpleton. Idiot. You clearly aren't a student of history, but whenever there is a tech breakthrough, some idiot like you comes along thinking they have the secret as to why it won't work. Good luck with your outdated tech. You are gonna be left behind.

I am sorry, but whatever you do, has nothing to do with being respectful and polite.
Obviously, you are not able to handle a conversation in a respectful manner. Whoever has a different opinion is an idiot?
I don’t even know why he is continuing to argue with you…?

Being in a certain field doesnt make you right. Are you under the impression that you shine in the field and “the rest” are uneducated? Being able to have a conversation in proper terms and accept a different point of view shows character, and that can not be learned in school…
Sorry, but that is a very unacceptable behaviour!

Maybe you should have an introspection and try to understand that being behind a keyboard doesnt give you the right to be rude and condescending!

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

Because it’s the topic of the thread? There’s about 1000 others for debating the merits of EVs in general

What we are talking about is the topic.

[kyrix1st]

I will buy the 'EV is better for environment' argument after they stop getting 62% of their electricity from burning fossil fuel, and losing 60+% of whatever is produced getting to households and charging stations. And the pollution from Li-ion battery manufacturing. And the safety hazard.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

I will buy the 'EV is better for environment' argument after they stop getting 62% of their electricity from burning fossil fuel, and losing 60+% of whatever is produced getting to households and charging stations. And the pollution from Li-ion battery manufacturing. And the safety hazard.

Still better than an Otto Cycle engine. It's been worked out many, many times. I don't expect the anti-EV brigade here to do research nor agree, though. At least one semester of university level thermodynamics should be a prerequisite to discuss these things intelligently.

[Ropes]

As California asks the residents to not charge their EVs 😂. Go full electric and every summer in CA is rolling blackouts. I wonder how this is going to work if using AC has historically been too much for the grid.

[kyrix1st]

Originally Posted by chris719

Still better than an Otto Cycle engine. It's been worked out many, many times. I don't expect the anti-EV brigade here to do research nor agree, though. At least one semester of university level thermodynamics should be a prerequisite to discuss these things intelligently.

I'll play. Pretty sure you are referring to the decades-old book reference of 25% thermal efficiency of Otto engines. The numbers are closer to 35% in modern engines thanks to the likes of nanocoating technology (yes, friction plays a factor in real life and your engine operates hotter than you think), and even if EVs were marginally better in thermal efficiency, the net reduction in pollution is debatable due to the aforementioned factors.

Since you seem to be academically keen, try this. Extract 100L of fossil fuel from the same well, half of which is sent to a refinery to be gasoline and used in modern gas engines, where the other half is sent to a power plant to be burnt off and converted to electricity to be used in EVs. You will find that numbers are strikingly close between the two, more consistent in favor of gas engines partly due to the existing infrastructure.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

I'll play. Pretty sure you are referring to the decades-old book reference of 25% thermal efficiency of Otto engines. The numbers are closer to 35% in modern engines thanks to the likes of nanocoating technology (yes, friction plays a factor in real life and your engine operates hotter than you think), and even if EVs were marginally better in thermal efficiency, the net reduction in pollution is debatable due to the aforementioned factors.

Since you seem to be academically keen, try this. Extract 100L of fossil fuel from the same well, half of which is sent to a refinery to be gasoline and used in modern gas engines, where the other half is sent to a power plant to be burnt off and converted to electricity to be used in EVs. You will find that numbers are strikingly close between the two, more consistent in favor of gas engines partly due to the existing infrastructure.

The point is, there is effectively a cap and any further improvement will be a few percent at most. You can even put this number at 40% if you want, it's not going to change it.

If you want to break it down comprehensively it really is a task requiring more than a forum post or two. Don't forget the emissions from trucking the refined fuel to the 145k gas stations across the US, though.

Argonne's cradle-to-grave analysis:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv

Even a Ford-funded study on pickups agrees that BEV is more end-to-end efficient:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac5142

If you have points to disagree with from the papers, then that's worth discussing. If you're going to immediately dismiss the paper from Argonne because it's a government institution, then it's not worth any further discussion.

[AmuroRay]

BEVs are garbage. I’ve literally posted all the information in this thread. Overweight, and requires massive amount of natural resources and they can’t be recycled.

People are pretending emissions matter when again, only 15 of the worlds nearly 1000 shipping tankers let off more emissions than all the cars in the world combined. And then there is planes, private jets and rockets that all let off more emissions than a personal vehicle.

BEVs are just stupid, they just make whatever ‘problem’ claimed come off as an issue of ‘personal responsibility’ that limits your choices and freedoms and doesn’t actually solve the problem.

You don’t save the environment but buying more crap.

[kyrix1st]

I'll take a look when I am intrigued enough.
One thing to note though, is the phrase "Ford-funded study" can go both ways, as car manufacturers have every incentive to simplify their manufacturing process i.e. simply outsource Li-ion batteries from China, India, etc... whichever country that offers the cheapest ones.
This brings to my implicit original point: EVs are fine as an addition, not so much as the only option forced down your throat. People are in the losing game if they think this homogenization would be beneficial for them.

Originally Posted by chris719

The point is, there is effectively a cap and any further improvement will be a few percent at most. You can even put this number at 40% if you want, it's not going to change it.

If you want to break it down comprehensively it really is a task requiring more than a forum post or two. Don't forget the emissions from trucking the refined fuel to the 145k gas stations across the US, though.

Argonne's cradle-to-grave analysis:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv

Even a Ford-funded study on pickups agrees that BEV is more end-to-end efficient:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac5142

If you have points to disagree with from the papers, then that's worth discussing. If you're going to immediately dismiss the paper from Argonne because it's a government institution, then it's not worth any further discussion.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

People are in the losing game if they think this homogenization would be beneficial for them.

Just another of the many claims in this thread without evidence. It is complicated, I will give you that. Ultimately, as the economies of scale shift in favor of BEVs, it will become beneficial for nearly everyone.

Regardless of the decisions of the EU, CA, etc. it's going to happen anyway. I don't think it's gonna happen in the proposed timeframe, but that's a different story.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

People are pretending emissions matter when again, only 15 of the worlds nearly 1000 shipping tankers let off more emissions than all the cars in the world combined.

Repeating false statements does not make them true.

The "15 tanker" thing was a thought experiment (hypothetical) done by one professor in 2009 comparing tankers using the worst bunker fuel and cars on low sulfur fuels. It was done to compare sulfur (SOx) emissions, not CO2 or NOx. The CO2 output of the entire fleet is 1/4th to 1/2 of all cars, thus the emissions of 15 tankers are around 3% of all cars.

This has been debunked and explained by several sources:

https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/upload...onclusions.pdf

Regarding the SOx:

https://www.cadmatic.com/en/resource...-million-cars/

[SexyRoger]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

Can’t wait, going to make my g82 feel slow

I mean cmon, back to back, my cayenne feels fast after driving the G82. lol... not sure what they did to the M4 but it is not like it used to be, and it surprised me.

[its55]

I just can't get excited about electrics.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by chris719

Repeating false statements does not make them true.

The "15 tanker" thing was a thought experiment (hypothetical) done by one professor in 2009 comparing tankers using the worst bunker fuel and cars on low sulfur fuels. It was done to compare sulfur (SOx) emissions, not CO2 or NOx. The CO2 output of the entire fleet is 1/4th to 1/2 of all cars, thus the emissions of 15 tankers are around 3% of all cars.

This has been debunked and explained by several sources:

https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/upload...onclusions.pdf

Regarding the SOx:

https://www.cadmatic.com/en/resource...-million-cars/

I’m reading this second link, and they just made an assumption, with no reasoning behind it to game better numbers:

The original assumptions contained some flaws. The next step, therefore, was to adjust the figures to better reflect the situation today.

First, the vessel speed was reduced from approx. 23,5 knots to approximately 18,5 knots. By doing this the main engine load was decreased from around 75 % to 40 %. The amount of sulphur in the HFO was also reduced to 2,45 % to better mirror the world average for 2015.

Again, this is just speculation to game the numbers to not seem as severe as they are.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by its55

I just can't get excited about electrics.

Most people feel this way. Every day there is a new article on how the costs of charging are increasing. BEV electric cars have always been a dumb idea, and the only people who disagree are Elon Musk fanatics.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by 10"

If electric cars can't stay on the road—-they are a HUGE environmental burden. OUCH

Disposable. When they start intergrating the batteries into the chassis, it will be worse.

Eventually, the cost to own a vehicle will just be too costs prohibitive, and you’ll ‘rent’ when you need a car. The WEF already laid this out - they want people to rent for all their needs, so your entirely reliant on the government

“you’ll own nothing and be happy”

People should have raised red flags when they told you that breathing was a greenhouse gas.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I’m reading this second link, and they just made an assumption, with no reasoning behind it to game better numbers:


Again, this is just speculation to game the numbers to not seem as severe as they are.

The first link tells you all you need to know when we are discussing the important emissions, CO2 and NOx. Either you can’t read or you prefer to continue to spread a false narrative, which is it? There are other sources if you bother to look.

15 tankers have the emissions of 3% of cars, on the highest side of the estimate, not more than 100%.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Disposable. When they start intergrating the batteries into the chassis, it will be worse.

Cars are already fairly disposable. My Corolla engine might last 300k but the chassis will have rusted to pieces by then in the northeast.

My coworker’s 2015 Model S has 120k+ and is still in great condition. The pack deterioration may level out somewhat also as they age. I’ve designed several products with LiIon/LiPo chemistry packs, including charging circuitry, and performed accelerated aging testing on packs using cells from nearly every major manufacturer.

Ironic to bring this up on a BMW forum when 99% of BMWs are mechanically totaled before 200k miles. Talk about disposable cars…

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by chris719

Cars are already fairly disposable. My Corolla engine might last 300k but the chassis will have rusted to pieces by then in the northeast.

My coworker’s 2015 Model S has 120k+ and is still in great condition. The pack deterioration may level out somewhat also as they age. I’ve designed several products with LiIon/LiPo chemistry packs, including charging circuitry, and performed accelerated aging testing on packs using cells from nearly every major manufacturer.

Ironic to bring this up on a BMW forum when 99% of BMWs are mechanically totaled before 200k miles. Talk about disposable cars…

The Corolla is the most sold car in the world, and Toyota one of the most dependable brands of cars. Comparing it to a Tesla is actually pretty ridiculous, and using one that ‘your friend owns) to comment that it’s somehow special that it made it over 120k is pretty funny too. Older Model S cars needed a physical MCU update because the specifications of the chipsets made them obsolete. The current model 3 with HW 2.5 and 3 are already slowing down with subsequent updates and it will get worse, for electric cars, that’s inevitable. Battery performance will degrade, changing will slow, range will decrease.

the 1 million mile model S had its battery replaced 4 times!

If a module goes bad in a newer chassis interstates car, that’s not even possible or cost effective.

For what it’s worth, my E37/8 Z3s E90/92 and my current 235i all made it over 100k miles (I used to drive 25k miles a year) with ease.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by chris719

The first link tells you all you need to know when we are discussing the important emissions, CO2 and NOx. Either you can’t read or you prefer to continue to spread a false narrative, which is it? There are other sources if you bother to look.

15 tankers have the emissions of 3% of cars, on the highest side of the estimate, not more than 100%.

So you’re just posting links with a different set of assumptions and just believing it’s true because it fits your narrative? I posted the statement from link directly and all they did was change the methodology to make it look less severe

[chris719]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

So you’re just posting links with a different set of assumptions and just believing it’s true because it fits your narrative? I posted the statement from link directly and all they did was change the methodology to make it look less severe

I really can’t help you any further, they aren’t assumptions. If you bothered to find and read the original paper, you would see it isn't even claiming that. The whole myth arose because some journalists wrote a clickbait headline because they don't understand how to read either. The paper was about SOx emissions, not CO2, and it was a thought experiment.

[AmuroRay]

Tesla ‘quality’

Here's what a rental Tesla Model S interior looks like after 19,000 miles https://www.autoblog.com/2022/09/01/...0-miles-later/

But I’m sure that model S held up to 100k jjjjuuussttt fine.