BMW R&D Boss - "...very hard to replace the batteries..."

[jadnashuanh]

At some point, BMW will use newer technology for their new i3's batteries. It is not a stretch for them to enable the new pack to fit into an original i3, as while they may change the exterior body panels or some of the interior design, they may not need to change the core of the vehicle - an advantage of the bolt on panels, you can change the look fairly easily. Since so much of it is software, adding features may not be all that hard to do, either. I just don't see a typical EV wearing out like an ICE does. ICE, with their reciprocating parts and all of the heat and combustion by products, just isn't as long lived as an electrical motor, and, when coupled to the single speed transmission like in the i3, that part should last a very long time as well. It's a different mind set.

 

[alohart]

I find it difficult to believe that any car manufacturer has sole rights to the designs of the parts in its cars. There are so many 3rd-party auto parts manufacturers selling parts for all cars. They can't all have permission, pay royalties, etc., to the car manufacturers.

Our other car is a 2000 Honda Insight hybrid. Its battery pack was warrantied for 10 years/150,000 miles. As the warranties for the earliest models began to expire, 3rd-party manufacturers began supplying battery pack modules that are copies of the OEM modules except that the battery cells have higher capacities, lower internal resistance, etc.; i.e., they are improved versions of the OEM modules. These manufacturers did not get permission from Honda to make these battery modules, they just did it. If Honda thought that this violated their intellectual property rights, they would have sued to stop the manufacture of these copies. But this hasn't happened, and won't happen.

In 2022, when the warranties of 2014 i3 battery packs begin to expire, I expect better, less expensive i3 battery pack modules to be available from 3rd-party manufacturers. If battery cell improvement is significant prior to 2022, I expect 3rd-party manufacturers to offer improved battery pack modules that some i3 owners might choose to buy even though their OEM battery packs are still under warranty.

 

[jadnashuanh]

I totally agree with Art...if not BMW, someone will offer upgrades to the battery packs.

 

[sleddy]

My tuppenyworth: BMW will offer battery upgrades, both as replacement for depleted units and range upgrades. Why?

- they’re a car manufacturer, and the perceived value of their products is directly linked to the number of older vehicles that are seen on the roads. This is a large capital purchase for the consumer, and can’t be compared to (say) a mobile phone, which generally comes free as part of a tariff. Car manufacturers are geared up for providing spares for decades after a model is deleted: customers expect this and there is no reason why BMW would not continue with the policy.

- offering upgrades to existing products is an extra line of business, and maintains the customer’s engagement with the product. Happy owners are crucial to sales success.

- they have a responsibility to recycle or reuse existing batteries at the end of their life. It may be different in the US, but sustainability is a major factor in the UK and the EU. I believe BMW are wholly serious about their environmental credentials, but even if they weren’t, the EU wouldn’t allow them to abandon their responsibilities.

- they are pioneers in a market which shows great promise. EVs are a tiny proportion of cars sold, and the primary barrier to increasing EV market share is range anxiety. The last thing they need is to add concerns about vehicle longevity and residuals.

 

[PhilH]

Ferrari are able to prevent anyone from making replica cars shaped like their classics, they have won every single case they have brought to court, so why doesn't BMW own the shape of their battery tray and the modules that fit inside of it?

Nonsense. Google Ferrari replica and you'll find hundreds: replica Dino 246 for example.

I repeat: if you believe BMW can "patent" the shape of their batteries, prove it by quoting the patent number. Ditto the battery function.

They might be able to patent the algorithm for managing the batteries, but everything else is free to replicate. Please don't just assert: provide some evidence.

 

[TomMoloughney]

I sat down with Jose Guerrero at the New York Auto Show and asked him specifically about this (and some other things). Here's the interview:

http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2015/04/q-with-bmws-jose-guerrero-at-new-york.html

My i3's battery. It was removed and re-installed in a couple hours

 

[WoodlandHills]

Ferrari are able to prevent anyone from making replica cars shaped like their classics, they have won every single case they have brought to court, so why doesn't BMW own the shape of their battery tray and the modules that fit inside of it?

Nonsense. Google Ferrari replica and you'll find hundreds: replica Dino 246 for example.

I repeat: if you believe BMW can "patent" the shape of their batteries, prove it by quoting the patent number. Ditto the battery function.

They might be able to patent the algorithm for managing the batteries, but everything else is free to replicate. Please don't just assert: provide some evidence.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304617404579304421511930880

http://jalopnik.com/judge-rules-replica-kit-cars-illegal-1444390832

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/24/news/mn-56581

 

[PhilH]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304617404579304421511930880

Subscription required.

http://jalopnik.com/judge-rules-replica-kit-cars-illegal-1444390832

Nothing to do with patent infringement or the shape of the vehicle. It's trademark infringement:

"It's pretty laughable that someone would claim to have no idea that building fiberglass models of Bentleys and then using the Bentley name would've been illegal"

Note the "and then using the Bentley name". The Bentley name is trademarked and therefore selling anything remotely similar is an infringement of the trademark and illegal.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/24/news/mn-56581

No evidence that this was a successful action, although "even using its trademark "prancing horse" logo" is significant: if he was, that would be trademark infringement, and building one similar and passing it off would be ditto.

You cannot patent a shape or something that is already in the public domain, so Ferrari cannot patent its cars not BMW its batteries. If I sold a Phil battery as a BMW, that would be illegal. Selling it as a Phil battery, based on the Bimmer one, would not.

 

[janner]

Jose Guerrero, BMW i product manager - BMW says the i3 is a scalable for the future, a car that won’t rust and people will likely keep this car well into the future. “So how do we keep this car relevant,” says Guerrero, “when technology is changing so quickly.” BMW says they are investigating how to keep it relevant, either through software updates and battery replacements. BMW sees the battery replacement as a potential money maker as well.

 

[WoodlandHills]

Well, the good part of such a discussion is that in a few years we will all know how things turn out.

My basic assumption is that auto companies have only their own interests at heart at all times and that their sole reason for existence is to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as humanly and legally possible. As publicly held corporations this is their legal duty and their mandate from their shareholders. I just cannot see how selling battery packs in lieu of new cars serves BMW's interests and, if BMW do not profit, I cannot see why they would permit an aftermarket to make that money instead. Now, if it turns out that the demand for such upgraded batteries is so low as to be supplied at the Mom & Pop/hobbyist level then BMW may very well ignore them, but if there is any sort of money to be made or significant sales lost then I would expect BMW to take action.

One other factor that I have not seen mentioned is the impact of stricter CAFE rules in coming years. It is not too difficult to meet the requirements now, but as time goes on they harder and harder. In another 10 years every EV sale is going to become hugely important to BMW in order to offset an ICE sale or two or three and they will not be able to afford the loss of sales to upgraded batteries. BMW only get credit for new car sales, not the sale of replacement batteries, upgraded or otherwise.

The big wild card is Elon Musk: should he decide that his superfactory needs another way to move product and jumps into the market, he would have the legal power to keep BMW tied up in court, while he sells batteries, long enough to render any adverse judgement moot. "Better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission" is a motto in Silicon Valley...

My guess is that BMW will sell replacement batteries, but they will not be upgraded in capacity. This lets them claim the PR credit for supporting the long lifecycle of the i3 without cannibalizing any new EV sales that they will need to meet their corporate fleet economy targets.

It will be a lot of fun watching the auto industry over the next decade or so, lots of changes coming!

 

[jadnashuanh]

IMHO, you do not understand the legalities of this. BMW may have a patent on THEIR battery, but if someone wants to make a battery holder that works in the i3, they are free to do so. Right now, the Tesla battery is much smaller cells, and the logic to recharge and manage them is not quite the same, so that probably would not be a viable battery source replacement.

What you cannot do, at least while the patent and copyright protections are intact, is make an EXACT copy of something. But, you can make something functionally identical, but approach it in a different way. IBM tried to stop AMD with making PC BIOS, but in the end, IBM lost, even though they function and perform essentially the same task. And then, BMW may welcome independent development of new battery technology. Few manufacturers are true vertical corporations where they take the raw materials in and make the final finished product. They typically set design parameters and may help in the development, but work with independent suppliers, and deal with subassemblies.

The rules in Germany, and for the most part, much of the Euro zone are similar, the manufacturer must design a product for eventual recycling or reuse. Their products are designed to be taken apart and recycled.

 

[I33t]

A classic example is camera batteries. The factory battery replacements are generally expensive, and they are the same as the original battery that came with the camera. Third party batteries are the same shape, fit the camera and work (although some cheap brands don't work well). These days, I don't bother with factory camera batteries as the third party industry is on top of their game.

Thread redux:

The claim that it is "very hard to replace the batteries" is proven to be false. It's probably a translation mistake or possibly an unintentional error.

The claim that third party batteries are not possible due to patents is a highly unlikely outcome. The biggest barrier will be making a battery pack with the same or higher capacity that is engineered to interface with the car's battery management and information systems. At some point, it is possible that BMW might license third party batteries.

 

[Lincsat]

Maybe he meant very difficult to replace a battery cell

 

[jadnashuanh]

Replacing an individual cell would likely be lots tougher, and unless an aftermarket one was truly identical (unlikely), you'd probably have to ensure you replaced all of them to not disrupt the balance. The car was designed to replace a battery module (i.e., holding multiple cells) easily. BMW may do something with returned modules back at a recycling center, but the dealers aren't supposed to open them, only replace them.