RE: BMW i3: Driven
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
"highly Salient Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM) motor in order to deliver a wide operating speed range (using field weakening techniques to extend the peak power operating zone) but again, with a stated max speed at only 11krpm the specific output is only average. However utilizing the reluctance torque in the q axis lifts the motors peak torque value (5Nm/Kg).
The battery system looks entirely conventional Lion (not LiPo!) and is again average in energy density (22kWh/230kg = ~0.1kWh/Kg), with the nominal 360V operating voltage being typical and allowing headroom within conventional power electronics thresholds (most power silicon devices (IGBTs) are 600v or 1200v rated, with a 30% headroom for transient over voltage due to stray inductance, that makes approx 400v as a sensible system max for the cheaper 600v flavored devices)
The battery system looks entirely conventional Lion (not LiPo!) and is again average in energy density (22kWh/230kg = ~0.1kWh/Kg), with the nominal 360V operating voltage being typical and allowing headroom within conventional power electronics thresholds (most power silicon devices (IGBTs) are 600v or 1200v rated, with a 30% headroom for transient over voltage due to stray inductance, that makes approx 400v as a sensible system max for the cheaper 600v flavored devices)
Edited by The Vambo on Wednesday 10th July 22:26
WingNut said:
Did I get this right? 9 litres of fuel to increase the range from 100 to 180 miles? That's not very efficient is it?
Think they just recycled (mo pun intended) an old motorcycle engine for range extender duties. Not bound to be very efficient, but it is compact and does not weigh much.A part from that, technically, IMVHO the thing is brilliant. Only seen the bits on display at "BMW World" Munich myself, but some very impressive engineering there. Definitely not some half arsed "fig leaf" effort to generate positive Karma for all the X6ses sold
. Looks like they really mean it...However, as Chris points out, the use case is rather limited I think. No one living *in* a big city has access to a dedicated parking spot + charger. Getting that infrastructure in place will take a long time.
So the i3 isn't a car for an urban crowd. It is for the people that can afford to live in the "stock broker belt" (or Speckgürtel in German
) around a big city and need to commute downtown. The real "eco" solution to that problem would be: move closer to work and buy a bicycle -- or use public transport.
Edited by Kolbenkopp on Wednesday 10th July 23:34
All that carbon, and the images of the structure around the rear three quarters above, makes me wonder just what the insurance companies will make of it.
I mean, how will these things be repaired when the inevitable happens?
Is it a tub that sits on the chassis or a series of carbon panels bolted (bonded?) together?
I mean, how will these things be repaired when the inevitable happens?
Is it a tub that sits on the chassis or a series of carbon panels bolted (bonded?) together?
Unreal1066 said:
Has any PHer driven or own a Nissan Leaf. Could they give a review. Stuff like instant torque and how they use the vehicle. Most peoples journeys I would of thought would be about 10 miles maximum to work and back which would be ok for an electric car.
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/blogs/blog-my-week-with-an-electric-car/I just don't agree with the statement that 80g of Co2 p/km is produced by plugging in. OK maybe if the electricity is generated by the dirtiest coal power station. You can switch your electricity tariff to 100% renewables if your willing to pay a few pence extra per KW for your electric.
Its like saying my Volkswagen Scirocco diesel only produces 140g/km. But how much Co2 is created refining and transporting that fuel from Saudi Arabia or wherever its from to my local petrol station. A rough figure is a 2.4lbs (just over 1000g) to refine a gallon of gasoline!!
Electric drive is the future and I can almost guarantee my next car will be electric drive.
Its like saying my Volkswagen Scirocco diesel only produces 140g/km. But how much Co2 is created refining and transporting that fuel from Saudi Arabia or wherever its from to my local petrol station. A rough figure is a 2.4lbs (just over 1000g) to refine a gallon of gasoline!!
Electric drive is the future and I can almost guarantee my next car will be electric drive.
Edited by deansh8506 on Thursday 11th July 00:53
180 miles or so, by way of a petrol engine anyway 
For the inner city they're fine - but they need to have a 50 mile range, a 10 minute recharge, and cost under £5k. f
k the electric gimmicks - electric cars are not desirable - just make them cheap! It's a motor and a battery! It is cheap!
For the inner city they're fine - but they need to have a 50 mile range, a 10 minute recharge, and cost under £5k. f
k the electric gimmicks - electric cars are not desirable - just make them cheap! It's a motor and a battery! It is cheap! Well written article. Just one point though: you CANNOT compare the 80g/km consumed in the production of electricity with the normal output of a petrol car. The output of a petrol car does NOT include the CO2 emissions needed in extracting, refining and taking the oil to a fuel station near you.
As such, saying that an i3 has zero emissions compared to a Golf Bluemotion 99g is still more correct than putting that 80g/km figure only on one side of the comparison!
Btw, I think it will be a fantastic car to drive as well!
As such, saying that an i3 has zero emissions compared to a Golf Bluemotion 99g is still more correct than putting that 80g/km figure only on one side of the comparison!
Btw, I think it will be a fantastic car to drive as well!
SrMoreno said:
If you're going to count the carbon cost of generating electricity, surely you have to count the cost of extracting, refinining and transporting petrol/diesel in order to get a meaningful comparison.
Well really the transportation of petrol/diesel is the only cost.Extracting and the refining of oil isn't really for petrol and diesel as petrol and diesel are not the top product, You use the energy to heat the crude oil to extract each part from it as different temperatures. You get tar, heavy oil and motor oils before you get diesel and petrol is still further up the distillation column as you get jet fuel before petrol.
So really its the heating to make the first product is the cost as petrol comes from the natural cooling inside the distillation column
SrMoreno said:
If you're going to count the carbon cost of generating electricity, surely you have to count the cost of extracting, refinining and transporting petrol/diesel in order to get a meaningful comparison.
Very true, and I would add that it's not just damage to our atmosphere measured in Co2 that quantifies environmental impact. What about the damage to our physical environment too : geology (Fracking anyone?) , flaura, fauna, roads, economy biias - the list is endless.I have to say I'm disappointed - it's taken years of development to reach a car, which:
1. has poorer range than a Renault Zoe (130 miles)
2. weighs only 200kg less than the Zoe, despite the advanced (read expensive) construction
3. is barely faster 0-60 and top speed than the Zoe
4. will surely cost far, far more (and let's see how BMW deals with battery exchange)
And as this is a town car, those little knocks might well end up in hugely expensive repairs.
I am very excited to see carbon fibre ending up in the construction of a mainstream car, but seriously here there seems no point. It seems that even a 10-year company like Tesla can produce a more useful electric car.
1. has poorer range than a Renault Zoe (130 miles)
2. weighs only 200kg less than the Zoe, despite the advanced (read expensive) construction
3. is barely faster 0-60 and top speed than the Zoe
4. will surely cost far, far more (and let's see how BMW deals with battery exchange)
And as this is a town car, those little knocks might well end up in hugely expensive repairs.
I am very excited to see carbon fibre ending up in the construction of a mainstream car, but seriously here there seems no point. It seems that even a 10-year company like Tesla can produce a more useful electric car.
Looks ugly. It will be expensive. I doubt it is as green at it is claimed to be. If it is produced and sold it will be to the self-indulgent who really should be getting around their cities by public transport.
No doubt BMW have put a lot of technical effort into many aspects of this vehicle. It will be interesting to see how their carbon fibre production technology is scaled for volume production.
No doubt BMW have put a lot of technical effort into many aspects of this vehicle. It will be interesting to see how their carbon fibre production technology is scaled for volume production.
harrismonkey said:
Range in normal driving mode is somewhere between 80 and 100 miles. Using Eco-Pro adds another 12 miles, and the same again if you use Eco-Pro+. The range extender is not available at launch, but the nine-litre fuel tank allows the 650cc, 34hp motor to increase range to around 180 miles.
If it extended from 80 miles on electric, to 180 miles with the extender that is 100 miles on 9 litres (1.979 uk gallons). This is 50.5mpg.If you are saintly and make 124 miles in Eco-Pro+ to 180 miles with the extender it's 56 miles on 9 litres - 28.3mpg
I'm sure I'm missing some data.
So maybe the range extender gets mid, to migh 30's mpg?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff