BMW i3 was ahead of its time AGAIN!

[agzand]

Tesla recently disclosed that they will use a vision only system for their Autopilot (basically dropping the radar). New Honda models will also rely on a vision only system for adaptive cruise control. Looks like most manufacturers are shifting toward a camera based adaptive cruise control which is fundamentally similar to what i3 had since 2013 (albeit it is better due to several generation of improvements).

Now I cannot tell if it has anything to do with chip shortages, but looks like this is the future for mainstream cars.

 

[eNate]

That cool! Except in BMW's case they proclaimed "Camera only!" and closed the i3 design book forever.

Tesla's bold proclamation was "No LIDAR!" They're at 8 cameras per vehicle, used a powerful Nvidia graphics processor as a place holder while they designed their own silicon, and continually tweeked their design until they had data to show that the radar was mostly redundant and could be removed from the 3 and Y.

Tesla never shut their design book. That's the kind of forward thinking I wish the other makers would adopt.

 

[Deutsch100]

100% eNate. Just think how amazing the great in 2014 i3 was could be if BMW continued to make big changes up until 2021. Yes, we all appreciate the battery jump from 60 to 94 to 120...but almost everything else is unchanged. The i3 could have actually been a Tesla competitor instead of a beyond niche toy car

 

[agzand]

Well yes, obviously BMW has systems that are much more competitive with Tesla autopilot, but they don't offer them on the i3. It is easier to invest in a car that sells 300k a year vs. a car that sells 30k a year. Their problem was that i3 was introduced in the wrong market segment. It should have been a compact hatch instead of a super mini (e.g. VW Golf size). If it was the proper size BMW could sell enough of them to justify investing in the platform. However, one could argue that they didn't want to sell that volume of EVs in expense of their more profitable ICE models.

But in general everyone agrees now that other manufacturers who relied on suppliers for their technology missed the boat on autonomous driving and electrification. They think this is a long game and no single manufacturer can dominate the market in the long run, so it is not a winner takes all situation.

 

[eXodus]

Well yes, obviously BMW has systems that are much more competitive with Tesla autopilot, but they don't offer them on the i3. It is easier to invest in a car that sells 300k a year vs. a car that sells 30k a year. Their problem was that i3 was introduced in the wrong market segment. It should have been a compact hatch instead of a super mini (e.g. VW Golf size). If it was the proper size BMW could sell enough of them to justify investing in the platform. However, one could argue that they didn't want to sell that volume of EVs in expense of their more profitable ICE models.

But in general everyone agrees now that other manufacturers who relied on suppliers for their technology missed the boat on autonomous driving and electrification. They think this is a long game and no single manufacturer can dominate the market in the long run, so it is not a winner takes all situation.

BMW should have followed through with the initial plan and sold i3s directly to consumers without going through the hesitant dealers under their own i-sub-brand. Like they are doing with Mini.

You can see pretty obvious that the i3 was not designed with the BMW logo in mind Just remove the batch from the trunk - put in a different hood and tada - you got a different brand.

 

[alohart]

Tesla's bold proclamation was "No LIDAR!" They're at 8 cameras per vehicle, used a powerful Nvidia graphics processor as a place holder while they designed their own silicon, and continually tweeked their design until they had data to show that the radar was mostly redundant and could be removed from the 3 and Y.

"Mostly redundant"! If radar's not totally redundant, it needs to be kept if there's any hope of truly safe autonomous driving. Tesla used to promote how cool its radar is because it can detect vehicles ahead of the one immediately ahead by bouncing radar off the road under the vehicle ahead. That gave the collision avoidance system an earlier alert that traffic ahead was decelerating or stopped. Radar could also detect vehicles and obstacles ahead that are obscured by fog or darkness. These significant advantages of radar are almost certainly lost with an all-vision system that cannot see through the vehicle ahead, fog, or darkness.

Certainly Tesla is aware of these radar advantages and apparently thinks that an all-vision system can overcome these advantages. I'll be paying close attention to how this seemingly impossible feat is accomplished.

 

[eNate]

They've indicated they'll disable certain autonomous features with this change. Who knows how much it cost cutting, versus feature differentiation from the X and S, versus hardware and software advancements they've made.

I'll tell you this: radar plus the single camera on my ID.4 is butter compared to the i3. But I also don't believe Tesla is in the business of subtracting from their pursuit of self driving, so I expect they're not trying to spin a feature reduction for something it's not.

 

[agzand]

They've indicated they'll disable certain autonomous features with this change. Who knows how much it cost cutting, versus feature differentiation from the X and S, versus hardware and software advancements they've made.

I'll tell you this: radar plus the single camera on my ID.4 is butter compared to the i3. But I also don't believe Tesla is in the business of subtracting from their pursuit of self driving, so I expect they're not trying to spin a feature reduction for something it's not.

It is not a cost cutting thing, I think they don't have the chips that go into the radar. I think they cannot ship the cars with radar at this time. Obviously this is just a guess and I have no proof.

 

[Arm]

I never understood why BMW shut down the i3 line. It's phenomenally stupid.

The tooling was there, the design was there, the know-how and experience they gained was there.

Frankly, they could have developed so many varying platforms with the i3 concept and technology just like Kia and Hyundai are doing with their global platforms.

A 2022 redesigned, re-equipped i3 would have been a winner IMO. Price point can no longer be an argument against it as everything else has caught up to it.

SMH.

 

[agzand]

Because their 4 other EVs look stupid compared to 2013 i3.

 

[eNate]

I never understood why BMW shut down the i3 line. It's phenomenally stupid.

The tooling was there, the design was there, the know-how and experience they gained was there.

I think partly because the design isn't easily scalable.

The new i4 is being built on the same assembly line as their 3-series vehicles, of which they manufacturer 500,000 annually.

They couldn't do that with the i3, and were capped at 40,000 units without major expense and space. It's a great car, it's just not a profitable car to produce – especially when that factory could be retooled to crank out 10x the quantity of something made of steel and aluminum.

 

[agzand]

In Europe the outgoing i3 is setting sales records and doing much better than the trio of current BMW BEV models (i4, ix, and ix3).

 

[eNate]

I searched for and couldn't find any production or sales data for the i4, but regardless of how well the i3 is selling in Europe, their production numbers are effectively capped by materials and design.

 

[agzand]

This article has the March numbers:

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/04/28/22-of-new-cars-in-europe-have-a-plug/

Looks like this:

i3: 3,788 (all time record)
iX: 2,088
i4: 1,710
iX3:1,807

 

[eNate]

Ah but didn't the i4 and iX only debut worldwide in March?

I recall reading that production began in October and they were building up inventories ahead of the launch. That seems like a long lead-up unless they were very slowly ramping production to get all the kinks worked out of the assembly process.

 

[agzand]

I think these are Europe stats. None of the other BMW models can replace the i3 as an urban centric model. I think BMW counting on Mini to fill the void left by i3. But the current Mini EV doesn't have the i3 range and practicality.

It looks like BMW EV strategy is in shambles. They don't have a proper EV architecture and trying to compete with haphazard products until they can develop their EV chassis. Even the iX doesn't look like a real EV architecture. I think it is a heavily modified CLAR platform.

 

[Darlouis]

From what I saw a while ago the i4 is sold out at least through to end of 2022. The lower build numbers is probably due to ramping up manufacturing of the i4 or limited supply of the parts required. New i3's I think are shipping with the old smaller centre screen so there's an issue obtaining the larger screen now.

I don't care too much for the 'must be ground up platform' issue some EV nerds keep raising. While there might be some benefits to doing so, a good well built car is a good car, regardless. I'd personally take an i4 over a ground up EV design Model 3 - I just don't put Tesla quality or predicted long term reliability in the same league. Also, the model 3 platform is getting on a bit.

iX is an awesome car. iX vs Model X, obvious choice.

 

[agzand]

From what I saw a while ago the i4 is sold out at least through to end of 2022. The lower build numbers is probably due to ramping up manufacturing of the i4 or limited supply of the parts required. New i3's I think are shipping with the old smaller centre screen so there's an issue obtaining the larger screen now.

I don't care too much for the 'must be ground up platform' issue some EV nerds keep raising. While there might be some benefits to doing so, a good well built car is a good car, regardless. I'd personally take an i4 over a ground up EV design Model 3 - I just don't put Tesla quality or predicted long term reliability in the same league. Also, the model 3 platform is getting on a bit.

iX is an awesome car. iX vs Model X, obvious choice.

I agree i4 and iX are more desirable than Tesla models, but I would take a Tesla over those models, simply because they have much lower running costs.

The main reason Tesla is so successful is that they make high performance cars that can be driven for years and high mileages at reasonable cost (8 years/100k miles powertrain warranty?) Try to maintain an i4 or iX out of warranty and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[eNate]

...I don't care too much for the 'must be ground up platform' issue some EV nerds keep raising. While there might be some benefits to doing so, a good well built car is a good car, regardless. I'd personally take an i4 over a ground up EV design Model 3...

This bugs me terribly. An ICE car necessarily HAS to be designed around the powerplant, transmission, and gas tank. I hate unnecessarily long hoods on EVs as well as transmission tunnels taking up valuable interior space. Front suspension and steering is a compromise because they have to be designed around a gas engine. There's extra structural weight where it doesn't need to be, designed to support loads that aren't there.

I think, unfortunately or not, that even with purpose-built EVs we'll stuck with long hoods for a while because designers are attempting to appeal to an ICE-accustom buyer, and they don't want some that "looks weird" or are just plain attracted to the power that a long hood has traditionally expressed.

It's not fair to use the Model 3 as a stand-in for "ground up EV design," despite me agreeing with you that I'd rather own an i4 than a Model 3. But given other choices, the i4 is pretty far down my list.

 

[crp]

I think that BMW would sell many more cars if they would get rid of those giant kidney shaped grill features. They don't belong on an EV imo.