[MFNATIK]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

I sense that this is one of the sly potential futurethink wins for Tesla -- which, by the way (and I'm sure you know), has never considered itself a car manufacturer; cars are more a means to the company's end game -- licensing the Supercharger network to other EV makers.

After all, even if this Chinese company run by BMW i execs designs, builds, and markets the ultimate Tesla competitor in, say, the next five years (probably more like 10), they won't be worth much to consumers if they can't go places, and be refueled in those places.

Actually, I think this is why Tesla's game plan is flawed. Why create cars that need a network to be developed so they can operate? Meaning, why create artificial demand for infrastructure which is 100x more difficult to build than to design a proper hybrid?

BMW has the right philosophy. Think about it. They build essentially EVs that are not dependent on having a charging network built specifically for the vehicle. Instead the i3Rex and i8 can be instead charged at home or in the case of the i8, not reliant on charging at all for the most part. This makes more sense and essentially prevents range anxiety. Ask any Telsa owner about it and this is probably the biggest reason why you see most of them putting around at 65mph. Its not a good feeling. I used to get it initially when I got our i3 but now, I could give a rats ass if there isn't a public charging station for me to use. I can just run off my Rex.

Over time once Tesla pays and builds for the infrastructure on the backs of investors and their early adopters/owners, then BMW can move away from hybridization, but even then, I do not believe we will have the type of charging infrastructure in place to cover 100% of the USA like we do now with gasoline stations. So advanced hybrids like the i3 and i8 are IMO the way to go. We may never be fully independent of gasoline but lets just use a lot less of it so its lasts us much longer.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by MFNATIK

Actually, I think this is why Tesla's game plan is flawed. Why create cars that need a network to be developed so they can operate? Meaning, why create artificial demand for infrastructure which is 100x more difficult to build than to design a proper hybrid?

BMW has the right philosophy. Think about it. They build essentially EVs that are not dependent on having a charging network built specifically for the vehicle. Instead the i3Rex and i8 can be instead charged at home or in the case of the i8, not reliant on charging at all for the most part. This makes more sense and essentially prevents range anxiety. Ask any Telsa owner about it and this is probably the biggest reason why you see most of them putting around at 65mph. Its not a good feeling. I used to get it initially when I got our i3 but now, I could give a rats ass if there isn't a public charging station for me to use. I can just run off my Rex.

Over time once Tesla pays and builds for the infrastructure on the backs of investors and their early adopters/owners, then BMW can move away from hybridization, but even then, I do not believe we will have the type of charging infrastructure in place to cover 100% of the USA like we do now with gasoline stations. So advanced hybrids like the i3 and i8 are IMO the way to go. We may never be fully independent of gasoline but lets just use a lot less of it so its lasts us much longer.

Thing is, Tesla is thinking way ahead by investing this much in infrastructure: like, 10-20 years ahead. Most of the arguments made above apply to the present day, or no more than 3-5 years into the future.

There's a major flaw in the thinking above as well: oil price behavior. Think about it, and remember what happens when:
- Demand exceeds supply (the price goes way up, as it did in the mid-2000s partially because China's dependence skyrocketed because of rampant industrialization and urbanization combined with its new middle class' consumption demands), and
- Supply exceeds demand (the price goes way up because supply is cut to normalize the market. Remember the Oil Glut of the late 1970s? That's exactly what happened.)

In either scenario, there will be a tipping point when operating an EV will actually be significantly cheaper, in both the short term and long term, than operating a gas vehicle -- even a hybrid. That tipping point can, and will, be reached in multiple scenarios: oil running out (reducing supply), gas cars becoming more scarce (reducing demand), price fluctuations due to OPEC and other geopolitical factors, etc.

The challenge for EV builders and developers now is making EVs that are as convenient to operate as a conventional ones -- or, at least, that have the capability to do as much as a combustion-powered car does. Part of closing the convenience gap is refueling -- charging capability. The viability of the EV market is limited by that -- and in this day and age (particularly in the U.S. and Asia), only a private company such as Tesla can have the foresight and resources to close that convenience gap across nations. No government has this capability, or this power.

Remember that Tesla is not just working on infrastructure in the U.S. -- it is doing it across Europe, and will likely start in Asia in the next year or two. The above is why. Futurethink. Because it will need to happen, eventually -- and it's Tesla's ultimate goal to be in a position to profit from it long term.

[dkhm3]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

This is now even bigger than Albert Biermann leaving BMW M for Hyundai. BMW i has now lost not just its program chief; it's lost what amounts to its entire upper brain trust. In one month.

Something's not right at BMW i -- and it probably has much more to do with corporate priorities and resources than the threat of Tesla on its face. (Typical that a newspaper would overgeneralize like that, though the WSJ is better about that than most). After all, a relatively small manufacturer can only do so much ...

To me, this is likely evidence that BMW has spread itself too thin.

Albert Biermann was approaching the mandatory retirement age (i read this somewhere i forgot where) and his departure was thus forthcoming anyway.

When a group of people leave, as in this case, it does portray bmw poorly.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by phelot

Maybe it's just me but the i brand was never meant to be a mainstream, mass market brand. To me it was just an excuse to form a department for R&D that might recoup some of its costs away from the main corporate group, stuff like developing CFRP processes and other processes of that nature that they prototyped and proved to bring back to the BMW brand.

So basically a throwaway and experimental brand and eventually gets re-consumed by BMW's main branch.

Like Scion was for Toyota.

+1. Everyone is so quick to write-off BMW i but don't fully understand how or what BMW is trying to do with it. Unless BMW stated it in a press release, it was never supposed to be a commercial success, it was nothing more than a textbook exercise to see what they could do with CFRP, and a hybrid powertrain and oh yeah, if they sold a few cars, great.

Regardless of what situation BMW i is in, BMW will eventually recoup it's investment, whether it be selling more BMW i vehicles or by selling vehicles under the BMW/MINI marque using the knowledge and technology gained from BMW i.

You can pretty much equate BMW i to Bugatti. The only difference, I don't think Bugatti even turns a profit. VW throws things at Bugatti and in turn hopes they can use that across the VAG while catering to the wealthy. BMW i is the exact same thing but far more obtainable to consumers.

[MFNATIK]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Thing is, Tesla is thinking way ahead by investing this much in infrastructure: like, 10-20 years ahead. Most of the arguments made above apply to the present day, or no more than 3-5 years into the future.

There's a major flaw in the thinking above as well: oil price behavior. Think about it, and remember what happens when:
- Demand exceeds supply (the price goes way up, as it did in the mid-2000s partially because China's dependence skyrocketed because of rampant industrialization and urbanization combined with its new middle class' consumption demands), and
- Supply exceeds demand (the price goes way up because supply is cut to normalize the market. Remember the Oil Glut of the late 1970s? That's exactly what happened.)

In either scenario, there will be a tipping point when operating an EV will actually be significantly cheaper, in both the short term and long term, than operating a gas vehicle -- even a hybrid. That tipping point can, and will, be reached in multiple scenarios: oil running out (reducing supply), gas cars becoming more scarce (reducing demand), price fluctuations due to OPEC and other geopolitical factors, etc.

The challenge for EV builders and developers now is making EVs that are as convenient to operate as a conventional ones -- or, at least, that have the capability to do as much as a combustion-powered car does. Part of closing the convenience gap is refueling -- charging capability. The viability of the EV market is limited by that -- and in this day and age (particularly in the U.S. and Asia), only a private company such as Tesla can have the foresight and resources to close that convenience gap across nations. No government has this capability, or this power.

Remember that Tesla is not just working on infrastructure in the U.S. -- it is doing it across Europe, and will likely start in Asia in the next year or two. The above is why. Futurethink. Because it will need to happen, eventually -- and it's Tesla's ultimate goal to be in a position to profit from it long term.

You make some interesting points about oil but the point of hybridization is economy, and in BMWs defense, their focus is on economy+performance hybrids. Until the infrastructure and technology is in place so that a charge cycle only requires 5-10 mins like a fill up at a gas station, pure EV is not practical nor convenient unless we are only talking city cars.

The only thing IMO that Tesla has done is popularized the idea of EVs and they have managed to sell the hype really well. If people want to drink the coolaid then that is fine with me. I truly believe the route that BMW is taking makes a lot more sense for the real world that we live in today. And you're probably right, in 10-20 years things will/may be different and the technology will be there to quick charge your car in a few mins, not a few hours, then yes, pure EVs will make more sense. But until then, BMWi's approach is the better one. Plus BMW's CFRP technology and manufacturing techniques are light years ahead of anyone in the industry, including Tesla.

The true challenge of EVs is the dead weight of the battery that you have to carry around. Its a self defeating cycle. Want to go faster and farther? The only answer is a bigger battery! That doesn't make sense. They need to figure out a way to make the car lighter and more efficient. The best way to do that now is thru hybridization and CRFP. Thats where BMW i strikes a much better balance in their approach to EVs.

[BoosTonian]

Guys come on. We all know the reason for the "e" models is to meet government regulations with "mpg" numbers. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's why there are so many models of the same kinds of cars, with some selling like crap but BMW keeping them around. The more models they can throw a 4-banger in, the higher the company average gets. So they can keep making cars like the m5/m6 and not worry about fuel efficiency too much.

Every single customer that has bought an e car from us has expressed frustration at how the car sucks in power transition and that the battery isn't big enough to support squat, especially the one in the x5 e. But as long as they can publish the car has "55mpge" on paper, that's all that matters.

The i brand will continue to grow slowly, introducing models when BMW feels fit, not when people scream for more.

Not saying that BMW will not focus on making fuel efficient cars, but don't expect the first generation e cars to be anything fantastic. Trying to meet regulations is of highest priority. I'd rather them have these e models to boost overall company mpg average while still making kick ass motors for the rest of us

[FogCityM3]

Agree, this is incredible. M division and now i-division (where all the money is invested) talent is leaving. Biermann was a lifer and lived, ate, and breathed ///M and to go to Hyundai at this juncture in his career? As I stated many times before, there is something going on at this company where they cannot retain key managers. Management turnover at this pace is just another indication of a bad fact pattern that coupled with less than inspiring vehicles demonstrates a company that may be at or near the peak of its success.

Also the excuse-fest and spin-zone word smithing only serves to further reduce BMW credibility. Many of us are not fooled and BMW should be very concerned and not take any comfort by record sales numbers. Remember Toyota? Tesla is in a very competitive position to eat BMW's breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

QUOTE=Viffermike;19795744]This is now even bigger than Albert Biermann leaving BMW M for Hyundai. BMW i has now lost not just its program chief; it's lost what amounts to its entire upper brain trust. In one month.

Something's not right at BMW i -- and it probably has much more to do with corporate priorities and resources than the threat of Tesla on its face. (Typical that a newspaper would overgeneralize like that, though the WSJ is better about that than most). After all, a relatively small manufacturer can only do so much ...

To me, this is likely evidence that BMW has spread itself too thin.[/QUOTE]

[im4su2]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

This is now even bigger than Albert Biermann leaving BMW M for Hyundai. BMW i has now lost not just its program chief; it's lost what amounts to its entire upper brain trust. In one month.

Something's not right at BMW i -- and it probably has much more to do with corporate priorities and resources than the threat of Tesla on its face. (Typical that a newspaper would overgeneralize like that, though the WSJ is better about that than most). After all, a relatively small manufacturer can only do so much ...

To me, this is likely evidence that BMW has spread itself too thin.

You are right on. In my business I have major car manufacturers and suppliers as my clients, including one German company that owns various brands, along with a major developer of transmissions. I also handle an important US-based company that you can also guess that BMW has been chasing. BMW is one of the only ones that does not invest in my resource, which is essentially content used to innovate.

[shivaswrath]

Working for a German company, I can tell you, this is actually worse than bad.
And they'll take 4 years to replace the talent, at which point Apple and others will be well into the mix.
Competition is healthy, so eventually we'll benefit...

[BoosTonian]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Agree, this is incredible. M division and now i-division (where all the money is invested) talent is leaving. Biermann was a lifer and lived, ate, and breathed ///M and to go to Hyundai at this juncture in his career? As I stated many times before, there is something going on at this company where they cannot retain key managers. Management turnover at this pace is just another indication of a bad fact pattern that coupled with less than inspiring vehicles demonstrates a company that may be at or near the peak of its success.

Also the excuse-fest and spin-zone word smithing only serves to further reduce BMW credibility. Many of us are not fooled and BMW should be very concerned and not take any comfort by record sales numbers. Remember Toyota? Tesla is in a very competitive position to eat BMW's breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

QUOTE=Viffermike;19795744]This is now even bigger than Albert Biermann leaving BMW M for Hyundai. BMW i has now lost not just its program chief; it's lost what amounts to its entire upper brain trust. In one month.

Something's not right at BMW i -- and it probably has much more to do with corporate priorities and resources than the threat of Tesla on its face. (Typical that a newspaper would overgeneralize like that, though the WSJ is better about that than most). After all, a relatively small manufacturer can only do so much ...

To me, this is likely evidence that BMW has spread itself too thin.

[/QUOTE]
The M boss leaving was devastating in my opinion. He led and build one of the best (if not the best) sub brands in history, BMW M. To have him leave abruptly is a telling sign that corporate BMW is getting greedy and very controlling. They're starting to strap the sub divisions and create their agendas for them instead of letting the brands fully innovate.

The M boss wanted to do so much more than what he was allowed to do, and he disliked the dilution of the brand (read this in a interview in a German business insider I believe).

Now BMW keeps saying that the i brand won't release another car until at least 2020. And with the failure of the i8 with the lack of creating anything special or building on it, you have the i leaders leaving. They want to innovate and grow their respective sub brands and BMW is saying no and rather create junk models further diluting the brand and "making something for everyone"

Very reminiscent of GM before they crashed and went through a restructuring. Maybe that's what BMW needs.

[yousefnjr]

BS on all this "BMW i was never meant to be successful" talk. We all know they put profit before anything else today, doesn't make any sense for them to not seek ROI. I swear I remember the marketing spiel before release that i3's were going to take over cities and blah blah

[FogCityM3]

Mandatory retirement age is usually for c-suite employees at the corporate/group level and is designed for succession reasons. If the rules did apply to him as the head of the division/chief engineer, then that's just a dumb rule and further evidence of a misguided and antiquated company that legislates retirement no matter how critical that person is to the success of the business.

Originally Posted by dkhm3

Albert Biermann was approaching the mandatory retirement age (i read this somewhere i forgot where) and his departure was thus forthcoming anyway.

When a group of people leave, as in this case, it does portray bmw poorly.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

BS on all this "BMW i was never meant to be successful" talk. We all know they put profit before anything else today, doesn't make any sense for them to not seek ROI. I swear I remember the marketing spiel before release that i3's were going to take over cities and blah blah

Who says they're not seeking their ROI? The BMW i3 and i8 were released in 2014, you expect BMW to recoup everything they invested into manufacturing and CFRP in less than two years? That's not even possible or feasible.

[Mavus]

the board needs to be replaced. they are spending funds on fwd chassis and yet can't design a proper m. they are killing passion and no wonder folks are leaving. it will take a long time to recover. they are too fragmented internally and plain greedy. it's all about unit sales. Tesla is 10 years ahead at least. Hell even GM is more interesting, can't believe I'm writing this.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

You are correct. Our aim is to complete the full BMW range with an iPerformance option from the entry model to our flagship for now 7er.
As of now we offer a 2er,3er,X5 and 7er models as Plug-in Hybrids. And next year will see the 5er offer plug-in hybrid with eventually three levels from entry to M Performance. And then it will feature on the X3.
The next 3er will also offer a full range of options.

The upcoming 5er Gran Turismo Concept is the first BMW model to illustrate a hydrogen fuel cell for a production model of which a prototype based on the existing F07 has been showcased and tested by certain aspects of the media.

Thanks for the updates Scott - highly appreciated. Any updates on the next generation M3/M4 would also be really appreciated - particularly if they will be RWD biased with electric drive assistance on the front axle...

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by MThree_driver

The M boss leaving was devastating in my opinion. He led and build one of the best (if not the best) sub brands in history, BMW M. To have him leave abruptly is a telling sign that corporate BMW is getting greedy and very controlling. They're starting to strap the sub divisions and create their agendas for them instead of letting the brands fully innovate.

The M boss wanted to do so much more than what he was allowed to do, and he disliked the dilution of the brand (read this in a interview in a German business insider I believe).

Now BMW keeps saying that the i brand won't release another car until at least 2020. And with the failure of the i8 with the lack of creating anything special or building on it, you have the i leaders leaving. They want to innovate and grow their respective sub brands and BMW is saying no and rather create junk models further diluting the brand and "making something for everyone"

Very reminiscent of GM before they crashed and went through a restructuring. Maybe that's what BMW needs.

Only "Enthusiasts" rate the i8 as a failure because it does not fit in their perfect world of what a BMW sports car should be. Because it should have a V8 and over 600 PS+.
The i8 is far from failure it is made it to be.
Its the future of the Sports Car, today.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by Smooth 330i

the board needs to be replaced. they are spending funds on fwd chassis and yet can't design a proper m. they are killing passion and no wonder folks are leaving. it will take a long time to recover. they are too fragmented internally and plain greedy. it's all about unit sales. Tesla is 10 years ahead at least. Hell even GM is more interesting, can't believe I'm writing this.

A proper M? Many here would disagree.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

Who says they're not seeking their ROI? The BMW i3 and i8 were released in 2014, you expect BMW to recoup everything they invested into manufacturing and CFRP in less than two years? That's not even possible or feasible.

+1 - holy shit with all of the sky is falling talk.

(1.) BMW is clearly taking a "middle road" strategy with electric: build a competency so if it takes off ramping up is a small pivot, if it doesn't you get all of the lightweight materials technology and the MPG benefits which gives you room for huge margin M-cars. It's not a big risk because you're not trying to build a full lineup of i-cars (unless it takes off) as TheBingoBalls points out.

(2.) Biermann leaving is broadly irrelevant. Whether planned or not, it was probably a bump but the world's graveyards are full of indispensable men.

(3.) BMW probably has an internal SharePoint site. Staff churn is never fun but I'm sure they have a SharePoint with all the M/i/e-plans in it.

Step back from the ledge everyone, BMW is going to be ok.

[Arcades]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

The way my friends at BMW AG put it... BMW lost some foot soldiers. They still have their "e-team".

Foot soldiers?! Shouldn't it be "i-team"?

Suddenly the sky is falling because BMW lost 3 people lol.

And by the way, if you trust some China Start-Up company, you should rethink your stance. I would never buy a car that is "Made in China" That isn't going happen in my life time. If they can barely make proper toilets I ain't buying their cars.

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

Who says they're not seeking their ROI? The BMW i3 and i8 were released in 2014, you expect BMW to recoup everything they invested into manufacturing and CFRP in less than two years? That's not even possible or feasible.

No, I don't expect that. That's not at all what I said.

[MFNATIK]

Originally Posted by Arcades

Foot soldiers?! Shouldn't it be "i-team"?

Suddenly the sky is falling because BMW lost 3 people lol.

And by the way, if you trust some China Start-Up company, you should rethink your stance. I would never buy a car that is "Made in China" That isn't going happen in my life time. If they can barely make proper toilets I ain't buying their cars.

Lolol ironically people said the same thing about Japanese "junk" 50 years ago and look at the preception of Made in Japan today lol

[ZilberGrau ZHP]

Man the Germans (and Ferrari) are in a very precarious position. What has made their brand so unique have been built around many things- but one main one- the engine is pretty much persona non grata as it pertains to the current and future EV's. I mean the Tesla P85 0-60 in a frictionless 3.2 seconds (or better?) I know straight line speed isn't the all in all but geez... So the sonorous Ferrari V8s and 12's , the BMW "inline 6" these are automtive icons of what is quickly becoming a bygone era. So they must go down this path and in a big way. If Tesla delivers on their new one to the tune of 330,000 first time out- what a game changer that is. Not that all will follow through and buy- but for 35-40k would you rather a Tesla or a KIA Optima which can get to those levels. This isnt happening tomorrow but the direction is unmistakeable- the internal combustion engines days are numbers- and the established German makers need to start adapting now and leverage their brand, handling, premium interiors (Teslas arent that nice inside actually)
and EASIER AND BETTER TO USE Infotainment centers- I am not a fan of BMWs set up for a variety of reasons, and can be improved upon A LOT. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds- but waiting for an EV 3 series 0-60 in 3 seconds... with world class handling and lower weight with all those batteries. There are opportunities...