BMW i8 and giving hybrids an easy ride

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

You assume this^^^ is because the i8 is "not balanced" because it suits your viewpoint that the car doesn't "Handle" very well for a 100K sports car. Yet, in that case, it would be "not balanced" in the wet or the dry, that doesn't change the "balance" of the car.

So here's an alternate view: TYRES!! What sort of tyres do you think are fitted to the 911, and what sort to the i8, and why would they be different in the "wet"?

Think about the big picture: Porsche sells 911s. How many fewer will they sell, or what negative reaction will you get if they fit high performance sports tyres, which have a very broad grip window in terms of temperature and humidity, but, due to their high silica content, also are very draggy, and hence generate a few more g/km of co2.

Now consider the same decision making process on the i8? Do you come up with the same answer?


Consider that^^^ for a moment, then get back to me ;-)

In theory, maybe, but why would the tyres be so much worse in the wet than the dry? We aren't talking mid-winter versus summer - just wet track vs dry track.

[ellipsis]

I think ORD's point is basically right.

There is a clear and necessary acceptance amongst the motoring industry, but a much quieter one by those who commentate upon it, that this is the direction in which all forms of road vehicle are destined. The initial promise of Autocar (didn't read the exact article) may perhaps have been a little disingenuous or possibly editorially naive but nonetheless intended to demonstrate a good intention.

When presented with what is an utterly unique car - neither P1/LaF/918 at one end nor Prius at the other - do you really kick it, the i8, in the balls, as if it were solely petrol engined?

This doesn't mean to suggest that the magazine wishes to protect its reputation with the manufacturer, but more that it doesn't want to be seen belittling the positive direction (Daveco?) that these first steps in 'affordable' hybrid-sports are being taken. Credit to BMW for taking the first hit. And I know the journalists think the same.

I don't envy the position of such a magazine editor these days.

Edited

Edited by ellipsis on Wednesday 17th September 14:53

[ellipsis]

I think ORD's point is basically right.

There is a clear and necessary acceptance amongst the motoring industry, but a much quieter one by those who commentate upon it, that this is the direction in which all forms of road vehicle are destined. The initial promise of Autocar (didn't read the exact article) may perhaps have been a little disingenuous or possibly editorially naive but nonetheless intended to demonstrate a good intention.

When presented with what is an utterly unique car - neither P1/LaF/918 at one end nor Prius at the other - do you really kick it, the i8, in the balls, as if it were solely petrol engined?

This doesn't mean to suggest that the magazine wishes to protect its reputation with the manufacturer, but more that it doesn't want to be seen belittling the positive direction (Daveco?) that these first steps in 'affordable' hybrid-sports are being taken. Credit to BMW for taking the first hit. And I know the journalists think the same.

I don't envy the position of such a magazine editor these days.

Edited

Edited by ellipsis on Wednesday 17th September 15:47

[ORD]

ManOpener said:

Allow me to rephrase; as you seem to have direct access to the article and I don't, do you mind quoting, verbatim, the sentence or two where they claim it handles badly even for a GT? Given you've already written several hundred words on the subject, a couple of dozen lifted straight from it's hallowed pages shouldn't be too taxing?

Sure

"Ride and Handling
What's important with the i8 is to manage your expectations. Come at it hoping for a straight rival to a Porsche 911 or an Audi R8 and youre likely to come away if not disappointed, then at least slightly bemused. Expect it to be closer to BMW's own 6 series or another GT and the i8 is perhaps more likely to fulfil your remit

The steering, for one, is definitely more that of a tourer than sports car... It's far from unpleasant but less connected than you might have expected.

The chassis, too, feels more tuned for dabbing in straight line demolitions than it is for consuming corners...

Where the i8 is slightly less convincing is if you ask it to do the things you'd normally ask of a £100k sports car. It's not that its incapable...it's just that the balance isn't quite suited to outright sportiness."

"On the limit

A mixed bag here...In the dry, you drive up to where the front lets go and then manage things; in the wet., it's a slightly different story. The front end lets go first on a steady throttle, but its possible to push through that and unstick the rear...from then on the i8 doesn't behave like you might expect. The throttle pedal induces little but lag, and when the power does arrive, it's frequently biased to the front electric motors, which clumsily drag the i8 straight again. It can be quite quick, but its not always wildly entertaining."

"Verdict

...its dynamics fall short of the best we'd expect of a sports car (the balance is even a touch off for a GT car"

It handles like an average GT but, according to Autocar, that isn't a big deal because it has low CO2 figures.

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

Max_Torque said:

You assume this^^^ is because the i8 is "not balanced" because it suits your viewpoint that the car doesn't "Handle" very well for a 100K sports car. Yet, in that case, it would be "not balanced" in the wet or the dry, that doesn't change the "balance" of the car.

So here's an alternate view: TYRES!! What sort of tyres do you think are fitted to the 911, and what sort to the i8, and why would they be different in the "wet"?

Think about the big picture: Porsche sells 911s. How many fewer will they sell, or what negative reaction will you get if they fit high performance sports tyres, which have a very broad grip window in terms of temperature and humidity, but, due to their high silica content, also are very draggy, and hence generate a few more g/km of co2.

Now consider the same decision making process on the i8? Do you come up with the same answer?


Consider that^^^ for a moment, then get back to me ;-)

In theory, maybe, but why would the tyres be so much worse in the wet than the dry? We aren't talking mid-winter versus summer - just wet track vs dry track.

Ok, trying to avoid this descending into a boring article on tyre tech, so with necessary brevity:

Tyres "grip" using a "micro texture" mechanism, which is why wider tyres grip more than narrower ones (if they just used a classical "frictional" approach then that wouldn't be the case).

A tyre has less grip in the wet because the water molecules "fill in" some of this microtexture. So, in order to make a tyre that grips well in the wet, you need to include hard "spiky" substances, that stick out and break through that water layer. Unfortunately, those substances (silica usually) also result in lots of drag, which for a car majoring in fuel economy is not a great idea.
Tyre manufacturers have found ways to restoring the dry weather grip to some degree (rubber compound, tread design and self heating etc), but "eco" tyres are always much more of a compromise between rolling friction and maximum adhesion, and this is magnified by wet surfaces for the reasons mentioned

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

It handles like an average GT but, according to Autocar, that isn't a big deal because it has low CO2 figures.

#


But isn't THAT^^^ exactly the point of the car? ie, what use is an i8 that handles just like a 911 but has poor fuel economy? (especially as you can already buy that car for a lot less money, it's called the 911.......)


Modern cars are about "compromise". if you personally don't like the compromise an i8 has to make to be "eco", well there's good news, no one is (yet!) forcing you to buy one. Buy the 911 instead. In effect, for you personally, you rate ultimate handling over ultimate fuel economy. That's fine, nowt wrong with that, but i fail to see why BMW (and maybe autocar) should have to pander to such an old fashioned audience?

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

It handles like an average GT but, according to Autocar, that isn't a big deal because it has low CO2 figures.

#


But isn't THAT^^^ exactly the point of the car? ie, what use is an i8 that handles just like a 911 but has poor fuel economy? (especially as you can already buy that car for a lot less money, it's called the 911.......)


Modern cars are about "compromise". if you personally don't like the compromise an i8 has to make to be "eco", well there's good news, no one is (yet!) forcing you to buy one. Buy the 911 instead. In effect, for you personally, you rate ultimate handling over ultimate fuel economy. That's fine, nowt wrong with that, but i fail to see why BMW (and maybe autocar) should have to pander to such an old fashioned audience?

Because it's a fricking sports car (or pretending to be one)!

I might just about put fuel efficiency somewhere in the equation for a mile-muncher, but this is supposed to be a fun car. In any case, it is losing you £25k a year in depreciation, so worrying about 10mpg here or there is faintly absurd.

Any £100k sports car that is being sold on the basis of its mpg is pandering to a different audience, yes, namely people who cannot do simple maths and work out that 10mpg is moving deckchairs on the titanic.


Autocar should "pander" to me to the extent of not insulting my intelligence by telling me that it doesn't really matter that a sports car handles very averagely as long as it emits low C02.

I would bet that almost nobody who buys an i8 will do so for eco reasons. It just isn't that kind of car - it isn't actually that low emissions, in the real world, and that is ignoring the obvious point that it is, taking into account production C02 and other pollution, probably very polluting indeed.

I do agree to this extent, though - it is good that BMW is trying to make performance hybrid cars kinda realistically affordable, and I am impressed that they have managed it. But it still isn't a great car by any stretch, and I don't see what is wrong with saying that - "We are glad BMW made this car. It is impressive in some respects, but ultimately not much of a sports car in ways that matter to keen drivers". Just don't tell me it is the 3rd best sports car for sale at the moment!

[greygoose]

I'm not sure why you are getting so heated about this, you have the choice to buy an i8 (or Autocar magazine) and the choice not to if you don't like them. BMW have sold out the i8 until next year so I am not sure your guesses at residuals are close to the mark. It isn't a 911 but it is an interesting, futuristic vehicle that obviously appeals to a lot of buyers.

[ORD]

greygoose said:

I'm not sure why you are getting so heated about this, you have the choice to buy an i8 (or Autocar magazine) and the choice not to if you don't like them. BMW have sold out the i8 until next year so I am not sure your guesses at residuals are close to the mark. It isn't a 911 but it is an interesting, futuristic vehicle that obviously appeals to a lot of buyers.

Nor am I

I guess it is this - if there will be only porridge for breakfast in the future, I can cope with that (as I quite like porridge), but don't tell me that porridge is as good as a full English when it comes to being a full English.

But your point can be taken to extremes - why do any of us discuss cars? We don't have to buy them. Ultimately, your reasoning would mean that we can only discuss our own cars or cars we want and say why we like them (which, given how many people buy cars that they hate, might be boring )

Given that the car industry is moving in not-very-PH directions quite quickly, it is unsurprising that PH contains a fair bit of negativity.

Nonetheless, point taken

[anonymous-user]

Er, not wanting to get too "classical PH" with my assertions, but have you driven an i8 ORD?


I mean, if i was really annoyed that autocar and BMW were "pulling the wool over my eyes" i'd probably want to see what all the fuss was about myself?


(also, it's worth remembering autocar is just a weekly car magazine. There articles have to be readable by their audience (hence the basic "star" marking system etc)

Reading their article it seems to me, within reason, to be a pretty fair review tbh. They've told you it doesn't handle quite as well as a 911, they've told you it gets much better fuel economy. They've told you how much it costs. I kinda fail to see what else they could have or should have written tbh?

[JonnyVTEC]

Just looking at the tyres... even the 'performance' tyre option doesnt offer the girth of a 911 so the understeer/ grippy commentary is hardly going to be a suprise, is it?

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

Er, not wanting to get too "classical PH" with my assertions, but have you driven an i8 ORD?


I mean, if i was really annoyed that autocar and BMW were "pulling the wool over my eyes" i'd probably want to see what all the fuss was about myself?


(also, it's worth remembering autocar is just a weekly car magazine. There articles have to be readable by their audience (hence the basic "star" marking system etc)

Reading their article it seems to me, within reason, to be a pretty fair review tbh. They've told you it doesn't handle quite as well as a 911, they've told you it gets much better fuel economy. They've told you how much it costs. I kinda fail to see what else they could have or should have written tbh?

You're doing the same thing, though, MT - the article does not say, in the detailed and objective bits, that the i8 doesn't handle "quite as well as a 911"; it says, in polite terms, that the i8 handles very badly indeed for a would-be sports car and not even well for a GT. But the conclusion is then that it is better than x,y,z and excellent sports cars because it has low CO2 figures.

I think my complaint is this - either the i8 should be evaluated (1) as a sports car (in which case it is very average) or (2) as a hybrid sports car (in which case it is excellent). Autocar pretends to be doing (1) but its conclusion is only really sane if it is, in fact, still doing (2).

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

I think my annoyance is the porridge/full English thing. A weird character trait, I guess

[ORD]

JonnyVTEC said:

Just looking at the tyres... even the 'performance' tyre option doesnt offer the girth of a 911 so the understeer/ grippy commentary is hardly going to be a suprise, is it?

See the GT86.

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

the article does not say, in the detailed and objective bits, that the i8 doesn't handle "quite as well as a 911"; it says, in polite terms, that the i8 handles very badly indeed for a would-be sports car and not even well for a GT.

Ok, i realise that we all read things differently, but where does it say "very badly indeed"?

You seem to be confusing a car that is "not set up to oversteer on positive throttle inputs" with "very bad handling"??????
In which case, there is also no such thing as a "good handling" front wheel drive car..........


The article i read says (and i've highlighted in bold what i think to be the important words, the words that the autocar writer choose to try to put across how the car handles):

autocar said:

On handling precision and that final sliver of driver engagement, the BMW falls short of brilliance. But it’s good, and almost there. Certainly good enough to consider the car an amazing success in its own hyper-specialised niche.

autocar said:

Right up until you go looking for that critical last fraction of driver appeal, in fact, the i8 does almost everything right

autocar said:

The car’s handling stands up more stoutly to inspection

autocar said:

Body control is excellent; steering response equally immediate. Lateral grip levels could be higher

And as a summary, the i8 is "for you" if:

autocar said:

you genuinely don’t mind compromising on sporting clarity of purpose for lower emissions, enhanced economy and of-the-moment desirability

Now, i've actually driven the car, and tbh, i pretty much agree with everything they have written! Personally, for this market, not being able to oversteer the thing till the tyres pop is irrelevant (especially for 99.999% of drivers who would frankly just crash trying)


So, i summary, it's not a 911, nor, imo, is it trying to be. I suspect, it might just be a "whole new thing" (sorry CH, stole your trademark there..... ;-)

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

In effect, you've already decided you don't like it, so don't need to drive it, fair enough, although, I suspect other people might call it "blinkered" but ho, hey, we are all different eh!

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

the article does not say, in the detailed and objective bits, that the i8 doesn't handle "quite as well as a 911"; it says, in polite terms, that the i8 handles very badly indeed for a would-be sports car and not even well for a GT.

Ok, i realise that we all read things differently, but where does it say "very badly indeed"?

You seem to be confusing a car that is "not set up to oversteer on positive throttle inputs" with "very bad handling"??????
In which case, there is also no such thing as a "good handling" front wheel drive car..........


The article i read says (and i've highlighted in bold what i think to be the important words, the words that the autocar writer choose to try to put across how the car handles):

autocar said:

On handling precision and that final sliver of driver engagement, the BMW falls short of brilliance. But it’s good, and almost there. Certainly good enough to consider the car an amazing success in its own hyper-specialised niche.

autocar said:

Right up until you go looking for that critical last fraction of driver appeal, in fact, the i8 does almost everything right

autocar said:

The car’s handling stands up more stoutly to inspection

autocar said:

Body control is excellent; steering response equally immediate. Lateral grip levels could be higher

And as a summary, the i8 is "for you" if:

autocar said:

you genuinely don’t mind compromising on sporting clarity of purpose for lower emissions, enhanced economy and of-the-moment desirability

Now, i've actually driven the car, and tbh, i pretty much agree with everything they have written! Personally, for this market, not being able to oversteer the thing till the tyres pop is irrelevant (especially for 99.999% of drivers who would frankly just crash trying)


So, i summary, it's not a 911, nor, imo, is it trying to be. I suspect, it might just be a "whole new thing" (sorry CH, stole your trademark there..... ;-)

That's the first drive review (and those are notorious for being nonsense). The full road test review says the stuff I quoted above, and I think "very badly" is a fair summary given what is said and remembering that it is a £100k sports car, rather than a 2 ton GT.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

In effect, you've already decided you don't like it, so don't need to drive it, fair enough, although, I suspect other people might call it "blinkered" but ho, hey, we are all different eh!

Why don't you test drive a diesel Fiesta from 2000 when looking for a new car? You know it's a turd, so you don't bother, I expect. It's the same principle at work here, albeit that the i8 is far from being a turd and I am not looking to buy a 2+2 anyway, so would be wasting someone's time. So,um, actually a crap analogy

I don't think I have ever test-driven a car and thought "Autocar was a bit harsh in terms of its dynamics"; on the contrary, I have only ever found the magazines to be far too lenient when it comes to criticising BMW and VAG cars (and, to a lesser extent, Mercs). If Autocar says the latest big thing from BMW handles badly, I'll take their word for it given that they usually do their very best not to say that even when it is kinda obvious.

It is a different question with lesser marques, incidentally, which often get a hard time.

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

In effect, you've already decided you don't like it, so don't need to drive it, fair enough, although, I suspect other people might call it "blinkered" but ho, hey, we are all different eh!

Why don't you test drive a diesel Fiesta from 2000 when looking for a new car? You know it's a turd, so you don't bother, I expect. It's the same principle at work here, albeit that the i8 is far from being a turd and I am not looking to buy a 2+2 anyway, so would be wasting someone's time. So,um, actually a crap analogy

I don't think I have ever test-driven a car and thought "Autocar was a bit harsh in terms of its dynamics"; on the contrary, I have only ever found the magazines to be far too lenient when it comes to criticising BMW and VAG cars (and, to a lesser extent, Mercs). If Autocar says the latest big thing from BMW handles badly, I'll take their word for it given that they usually do their very best not to say that even when it is kinda obvious.

It is a different question with lesser marques, incidentally, which often get a hard time.

Ah, so your "marque-ist", now i see.

[Otispunkmeyer]

ging84 said:

i've read a few review of this, not heard 1 complaint about the handling
and to be honest i'm not sure how it could be the case, it's not excessively heavy at 1.5 ton, most of the weight comes from batteries which are fairly low down and along the centre and the carbon chassis should be nice and stiff, so if anything it should corner like it's on rails, but i've not read anything particularly good about the handling either, so perhaps it hasn't met everyone's expectations

i very much doubt this is going to be a heavily depreciating car, mid engined cars never go cheap, you compare the price of an audi r8 that's 6 years old compared to amg SL or bmw M6 of the same age you could probably get both for less. The i8 is something even more rare and unique than an r8, i suspect there will be a waiting list, and i doubt it will be something they plan to run as a model long term

The lanky dude with the hair from EVO said the handling when really pushing on wasn't as brilliant as you might expect for a BMW, but it certainly wasn't bad. Its on one of their YT videos and seemed pretty fair and balanced to me.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

Ah, so your "marque-ist", now i see.

I drive a Porsche (almost a VAG car) and am soon to buy an M3, so I have nothing against VAG or BMW. My point is that they get a pretty easy ride from the motoring press, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that they probably account for 90% of freebies and parties.

Or do you mean the diesel Fiesta comment? I like Fords - my first car was a Fiesta, and I think the Focus is very underrated. It just so happens that the only diesel Fiesta that I have ever driven was from about 2000 (actually it must have been later as it was a Mark V) and was terrible. I think that generation was a low point in the otherwise very good Fiesta history.