Why the low number of electric models?

bmwguy

Is it a marketing thing or what's going on? Do they not think the market is there yet to mass produce? The tech is there.
Just got me thinking with a bmw i3 I was in yesterday. Typical BMW on the inside and shares a lot with current 3 series. In the 3 series there is a phev the 330e. Why can they not just lift the powertrain from the i3 and fit a 3 series around it? Longer wheelbase and some other changes needed but I can't help but feel it should be an easy thing to do but it's it being done just yet.

Same goes for leaf and rest of Nissan range, ioniq with Hyundai etc.....

pwurple

It's very early days in terms of this technology.

Typically the uptake for new technology goes like this:




Electric vehicles are still at the innovator stage here. <1%

We are basically a bunch of tech enthusiasts who will take a technology leap despite shortcomings like lack of number of models to choose from.

zilog_jones

A 3 Series with the 33 kWh battery from an i3 won't get you very far. The extra weight and (probably) worse aerodynamics will reduce the range significantly. Same reason why there are no BEV crossover SUVs outside of the Tesla Model X - they need much bigger batteries which ain't cheap.

beauf

Too expensive for the compromises. That's not simply range or charge points. its the size of the cars, and convenience. We are probably ideal customers for an EV, short local journeys 90% of the time. But the cost of a EV vs buying an old 1L banger as a run about, or the cost of a MPV version that can carry 6 or 7. Makes it financially nonviable.

It would be interesting to consider the bangeromics of EV in the future.

The ultimate reason, far too much money to be made from selling Petrol and Diesel cars.

ICE makers had far too much power to convince legislators for years that they can't meet emissions and threaten to cut thousands of jobs so the pressure was taken off and they were allowed to keep producing highly polluting cars.

It's only since the VW emissions scandal manufacturers and Governments are talking about change but it's going to take a long time and it will only happen when they can make as much money from battery cars, sure they'll sell the odd EV here and there but it will take years to have every model car with a fully electric option.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

The ultimate reason, far too much money to be made from selling Petrol and Diesel cars.

ICE makers had far too much power to convince legislators for years that they can't meet emissions and threaten to cut thousands of jobs so the pressure was taken off and they were allowed to keep producing highly polluting cars.

It's only since the VW emissions scandal manufacturers and Governments are talking about change but it's going to take a long time and it will only happen when they can make as much money from battery cars, sure they'll sell the odd EV here and there but it will take years to have every model car with a fully electric option.

I worked for serial years in a supplier to car production lines ( robotic assembly systems)

The first thing is that it takes car companies 6 years to reengineer production lines, new models are often in the design phase 8 years before release

Secondly , as BMW finance officier has stated, current EVs are loss makers, and likely to be so for 10 years. No company is going to blind release loss making EV models willy nilly. The market has to catch up , these companies simply respond to demand

There is no " inherent " bias in car companies to or against EVs. its a simple commercial decision , if we build it can we make a profit , at present for many EVs that answer is " No". Hence the delays in models coming to the market

within the next 5 yeas I suspect we will see BEVs from all mainstream car companies

All bullsh1t, They had many years for R&D that they simply wasted because they didn't have to spend the money, they made too much on ICE tech and the local car maker Governments supported them all the way.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

All bullsh1t, They had many years for R&D that they simply wasted because they didn't have to spend the money, they made too much on ICE tech and the local car maker Governments supported them all the way.

They dont work or think like that , They are simply commercial operations, that have to make money to survive

the mainstream companies will slowly react as demand builds , we will see BEV offerings from a wide range of companies

for example VW have a BEV research project for over 15 years in place at Wolfsburg

bmwguy

Ok so it's market demand not quite at the level it should be and shareholders wanting a return on their money and share price I suppose. It's going to take some time. I want one but I also want to be driving the car I want like a 3/5 series or an Audi a6 type of machine. Looking forward to them actually.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

They dont work or think like that , They are simply commercial operations, that have to make money to survive

the mainstream companies will slowly react as demand builds , we will see BEV offerings from a wide range of companies

for example VW have a BEV research project for over 15 years in place at Wolfsburg

I think you are confusing "commercial operations" to resisting change.

Of course they have to make money and thats the crux of it. They had no incentive to invest in EV in any meaningful way so they produced compliance cars only. They have too much money tied up in their own plants and supply lines to switch to EV's. The market has to force them and as you said they will slowly react.

You mention profitability.... cros13 mentioned just yesterday that the i3 is profitable since day one (I'll take his word for it). Apparently Tesla make a profit on their cars just that their capital expenditure for expansion makes them look unprofitable. The unprofitable ones are probably the ones just producing a few token cars to look green so they dont have scale and hence unprofitable on that EV.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

................

We are basically a bunch of tech enthusiasts who will take a technology leap despite shortcomings like lack of number of models to choose from.

.... providing it's cheap

With the exception of the Leaf which was unprofitable from day 1 and only recently began to make Nissan money but it was produced first when batteries cost much more.

Absolutely, the car manufacturers are the ultimate reason we were not driving electric cars years ago at least plug ins.

Think GM and Chevron Texaco , yes remember GM sold the NiMh patents to an oil company who refused to allow to this day a battery larger than about 1 Kwh and insisted the battery could never be used as the main source of traction......

I think the NiMh patents have expired now or almost but technology moved on and we now have Li batteries.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

I think you are confusing "commercial operations" to resisting change.

Of course they have to make money and thats the crux of it. They had no incentive to invest in EV in any meaningful way so they produced compliance cars only. They have too much money tied up in their own plants and supply lines to switch to EV's. The market has to force them and as you said they will slowly react.

You mention profitability.... cros13 mentioned just yesterday that the i3 is profitable since day one (I'll take his word for it). Apparently Tesla make a profit on their cars just that their capital expenditure for expansion makes them look unprofitable. The unprofitable ones are probably the ones just producing a few token cars to look green so they dont have scale and hence unprofitable on that EV.

REDDIT TWEET SHARE SHARE EMAIL COMMENTS
BMW chief financial officer Friedrich Eichiner was downbeat about electric cars when he spoke to reporters in Lisbon last week. “We’ve learned that people aren’t prepared to pay a higher price for an electric vehicle. I don’t see some kind of disruptive element coming from electric cars that would prompt sales to go up quickly in the next five to six years.” This is in spite of recent reports that German Minister of Economic Affairs has called for a joint effort by European car makers to produce batteries for electric vehicles in Germany and Europe.

Eichiner says it will take seven years to double the energy density of batteries for electric cars. Until then, “We simply have to walk through the valley of tears,” Stefan Juraschek, vice president of electric powertrain development, told reporters at a briefing at a BMW testing facility in Munich recently. That’s what he says it will take before his company will be able to make money selling battery powered cars.

The conundrum, Juraschek says, is that buyers expect EVs to have longer range and sell for less money. He thinks electric cars will not go mainstream until battery technology improves significantly. “There’s a clear trend to bigger electric cars and longer driving ranges,” Juraschek told the press. The statement is in line with a recent poll suggesting that would-be EV buyers prefer longer battery range over short range but with ultra-fast charging times.

note the valley of tears comments

mind you the comment

EV buyers prefer longer battery range over short range but with ultra-fast charging times

is directly in the 'no sh!t sherlock " territory

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

With the exception of the Leaf which was unprofitable from day 1 and only recently began to make Nissan money but it was produced first when batteries cost much more.

Absolutely, the car manufacturers are the ultimate reason we were not driving electric cars years ago at least plug ins.

Think GM and Chevron Texaco , yes remember GM sold the NiMh patents to an oil company who refused to allow to this day a battery larger than about 1 Kwh and insisted the battery could never be used as the main source of traction......

I think the NiMh patents have expired now or almost but technology moved on and we now have Li batteries.

Ni Mh was never never technically going to complete , its a no hoper

the main reason we dont have lots of electric cars, is theres no demand for them, ( at the range and price point people are prepared to pay )

as the price point issue solves itself and the demands rises , then we will see plenty of EVs

Car companies dont care if its battery or petrol, they just want to make money selling cars

beauf

BoatMad wrote: »

...the main reason we dont have lots of electric cars, is theres no demand for them, ( at the range and price point people are prepared to pay ) ...

This trumps all conspiracy theories.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

the main reason we dont have lots of electric cars, is theres no demand for them, ( at the range and price point people are prepared to pay )

as the price point issue solves itself and the demands rises , then we will see plenty of EVs

Car companies dont care if its battery or petrol, they just want to make money selling cars

I agree with the above except the last line. Of course they care about that.

You know how much maintenance there is in an EV relative to an ICE. Much less.

The whole dealer network is dependent on breakdowns/parts/service. Supplying those over priced parts makes serious profit for the manufacturer, dealer and everyone in between. Where will all that profit come from with EV... hence they resist adoption.

Skatedude

market demand, anyone can buy petrol or diesel, but realistically, only people with driveways or garages can buy an Ev due to charging needs.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

I agree with the above except the last line. Of course they care about that.

You know how much maintenance there is in an EV relative to an ICE. Much less.

The whole dealer network is dependent on breakdowns/parts/service. Supplying those over priced parts makes serious profit for the manufacturer, dealer and everyone in between. Where will all that profit come from with EV... hence they resist adoption.

most car companies would prefer to unload the whole servicing and spare parts if they could

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

most car companies would prefer to unload the whole servicing and spare parts if they could

Why? The markup is ridiculously high.
Why do you think they make proprietary parts!!

I think you have too much faith in your old employers!?

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Why? The markup is ridiculously high.
Why do you think they make proprietary parts!!

I think you have too much faith in your old employers!?

spare parts are a necessary evil for car companies, mostly provided by , under law.

manufacturers by an large dont set out to create proprietary parts,( unless for a specific design or style feature ) they often hide that fact however, because currently its in the interest of a manufacturer to have a self standing commercially viable service arm. ( i.e. its dealer network )

long term , no company is into repair and service, its a cost centre that many would refer they didn't have

Price markup is largely a function of the dealer network ,. not the manufacturer. There is of course a whole plethora of third party and OEM suppliers as well at more competitive pricing

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

spare parts are a necessary evil for car companies, mostly provided by , under law.

manufacturers by an large dont set out to create proprietary parts, they often hide that fact however, because currently its in the interest of a manufacturer to have a self standing commercially viable service arm. ( i.e. its dealer network )

long term , no company is into repair and service, its a cost centre that many would refer they didn't have

Price markup is largely a function of the dealer network ,. not the manufacturer. There is of course a whole plethora of third party and OEM suppliers as well at more competitive pricing

So, do they make significant profit from supplying spare parts?

That will either be yes or no.... if its yes then they are a commercial entity and so profit from parts is key to them and their bottom line (feeding into the resistance to change argument)... if its no then I'd agree with you.... but I dont think the answer is no.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

So, do they make significant profit from supplying spare parts?

That will either be yes or no.... if its yes then they are a commercial entity and so profit from parts is key to them and their bottom line (feeding into the resistance to change argument)... if its no then I'd agree with you.... but I dont think the answer is no.

The logistics and costs behind comphrensive spare parts supply is one that car companies would rather not have

secondly , with modern automated assembly , very few garages can in effect rebuild a car to the same standards as the production line, hence many car companies would prefer that no replacement work takes place on the major car components

however with the current mechanical car, this isnt possible and customer requirements are such that local repair (and the subsequent provision of spare parts ) is a requirement

if car companies could get out from that they would

oppenheimer1

It comes down to demand ultimately, and what drives demand is is the product and the cost. Up until very recently EVs were a poor product, requiring a good deal of compromise over ICE which were also cheaper. Consequently the manufacturers developed their last platforms based upon ICE tech, and tooled their assembly lines based upon this.

As the tech is improving and demand increasing, the next generation of platforms will be more flexible allowing for more model types to be electric.

Not every type of product can evolve and get to market as quickly as computing tech unfortunately.

BoatMad

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It comes down to demand ultimately, and what drives demand is is the product and the cost. Up until very recently EVs were a poor product, requiring a good deal of compromise over ICE which were also cheaper. Consequently the manufacturers developed their last platforms based upon ICE tech, and tooled their assembly lines based upon this.

As the tech is improving and demand increasing, the next generation of platforms will be more flexible allowing for more model types to be electric.

Not every type of product can evolve and get to market as quickly as computing tech unfortunately.

exactly , and you can see that trend in the Ioniq, which was tolled as a multi purpose body shell. BMW have said they intend to abandon dedicated EV lines and retool standard ICE shells to be be multipurpose, i.e. the next BMW might be a 3 series offered in petrol / hybrid and BEV

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

The logistics and costs behind comphrensive spare parts supply is one that car companies would rather not have

secondly , with modern automated assembly , very few garages can in effect rebuild a car to the same standards as the production line, hence many car companies would prefer that no replacement work takes place on the major car components

however with the current mechanical car, this isnt possible and customer requirements are such that local repair (and the subsequent provision of spare parts ) is a requirement

if car companies could get out from that they would

Maybe some of that is true but the bottomline is that their balance sheets are steeped in the parts industry. It is painful for them to have to unwind that over to EV tech and stay profitable.

It will happen, but it will happen as slowly as the manufacturers can get away with. I'd say if Tesla didn't exist it would be another decade before the Germans sat up and took it seriously.

cros13

For a car to be a decent EV it pretty much needs to be designed from the start as an EV and built from the battery pack out.

In most dedicated EV platforms for example the battery is a major structural component and comprises the floor of the car. This model saves weight, provides a lot of structural rigidity and lowers the center of gravity. It also makes it quite easy to hit 50/50 weight distribution. It's a win-win-win in terms of weight, battery capacity and handling. But with the prismatic cells used my most manufacturers this requires the cars design to be corssover or SUV height to fit the battery underneath the passenger cabin. Tesla gets away with the lower Model S and 3 by using literally thousands of 18650 and 2170 cells to make flatter battery packs (over 8000 cells in the case of the Model S 100) but engineering the cooling system, safety systems and BMS becomes much more difficult with that number of cells packed in.

With conversions or platforms designed for multiple powertrains (like the Ioniq or eGolf) the battery is usually just stuffed in under the boot and in the central tunnel. That limits battery capacity and raises the center of gravity but often allows sharing lines in the factory with combustion models.

The only dedicated EV platforms on the market are the Twizy, the i3 and every Tesla model. Even the Leaf platform is just a modification of Nissan/Renault's B0+ combustion engine platform with the motor, inverter and charger design optimised not to work well in the real world but to be easily fitted by the same equipment that fits combustion engines in the factory.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

Ni Mh was never never technically going to complete , its a no hoper

the main reason we dont have lots of electric cars, is theres no demand for them, ( at the range and price point people are prepared to pay )

as the price point issue solves itself and the demands rises , then we will see plenty of EVs

Car companies dont care if its battery or petrol, they just want to make money selling cars

NiMh never got a chance and Chevron Texaco made absolutely sure about that that's why we only saw prius size NiMh batteries because larger was simply forbidden.

And yes I agree, car companies just want money and not to keep ticking over they want as much as possible and one reason GM also sold the NiMh patents is because they didn't need to produce electric cars, they just made the EV1 to prove they could do it, by the way, the first gen EV 1's were ran on lead acid believe it or not, I think it were 2001 before they switched to NiMh.

NiMh has greatly improved today also allowing higher charge and discharge rates and much improved low self discharge. Panasonic Eneloops are great but there are more LSD cell manufacturers.

In most shops though today you'll still find dirt NiMh cells and dirt battery chargers.

zilog_jones

BoatMad wrote: »

Ni Mh was never never technically going to complete , its a no hoper

In the early 2000's when the patent encumbrance by Chevron started, Ni-MH was still the leading battery technology. The point is that these actions set back development of BEVs by nearly a decade, because manufacturers had to wait for Li-ion to be good enough.

BoatMad

zilog_jones wrote: »

In the early 2000's when the patent encumbrance by Chevron started, Ni-MH was still the leading battery technology. The point is that these actions set back development of BEVs by nearly a decade, because manufacturers had to wait for Li-ion to be good enough.

not really , had even NiMh havent been encumbered by patents, BEVS would have had to wait for Li anyway

zilog_jones

Why? The GM EV1 with Ni-MH batteries had a 160-230 km range, and the Toyota RAV4 EV could do around 150 km - both not far off lower-capacity BEVs today, but 15 years ago.

BoatMad

zilog_jones wrote: »

Why? The GM EV1 with Ni-MH batteries had a 160-230 km range, and the Toyota RAV4 EV could do around 150 km - both not far off lower-capacity BEVs today, but 15 years ago.

GM claimed the EV! ranges was somewhere between 70 and 100 miles , nothing like the 230km you claim,

It was also extremely light , virtually bespoke car , not at all representative of what we have now.

It should be pointed out that Chevron sold its intellectual property in NIMh to Bosch and Samsung

zilog_jones

80-100 miles with the Panasonic 60 Ah lead-acid batteries, 100-140 miles with the Ovonics 77 Ah Ni-MH batteries - both with the 2nd generation EV1:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090726034344/http://www.cleanup-gm.com/ev1.html

Sure it was an unusual car, but continued development of the technology would have put us in a much better position now.

The RAV4 EV still had reasonable range, despite being a very normal compact SUV.

BoatMad

zilog_jones wrote: »

80-100 miles with the Panasonic 60 Ah lead-acid batteries, 100-140 miles with the Ovonics 77 Ah Ni-MH batteries - both with the 2nd generation EV1:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090726034344/http://www.cleanup-gm.com/ev1.html

Sure it was an unusual car, but continued development of the technology would have put us in a much better position now.

The RAV4 EV still had reasonable range, despite being a very normal compact SUV.

My point is that we would not be further along, if the Chevon patent position was different. EV1 etc was sinplyh too early in the cycle make a difference

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

It was also extremely light

No it wasn't. The reason it got a relatively good range was mainly because it was extremely aerodynamic. Cd of 0.195 (which compares favourably with the most aerodynamic car sold in the world today at 0.24)

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

My point is that we would not be further along, if the Chevon patent position was different. EV1 etc was sinplyh too early in the cycle make a difference

Too much ahead of its time? I dunno about that. The people driving them seemed to love them. A wee nudge from the US government at the time (think very strict average emissions per manufacturer) and the whole world might have all been driving EVs at this stage.

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Too much ahead of its time? I dunno about that. The people driving them seemed to love them. A wee nudge from the US government at the time (think very strict average emissions per manufacturer) and we might have all been driving EVs at this stage.

lets agree to disagree, its a hypothetical debate , as its not actually what happened

unkel

Indeed. Otherwise it wouldn't be just you, me and two thousand other fools driving EVs in this country, but nearly 2 million of us

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Indeed. Otherwise it wouldn't be just you, me and two thousand other fools driving EVs in this country, but nearly 2 million of us

again , hypothetical ,

eeguy

Over 90% of car journeys have only one person in the car, yet nearly everyone has a 5 seater car, just on the off chance you need to carry 5 people or a load of luggage in the back.
EVs are the same. You could comfortably do 90% of your journeys within the battery range of an EV, but people won't buy them until they're sure they can travel from Cork to Donegal, on the off chance they'll need to.

Tesla are nearly there on that front with the Model 3. We're at the start of an exponential in EV owndership. Numbers are tiny, but they'll grow rapidly over the next 10 years.

edanto

BoatMad wrote: »

My point is that we would not be further along, if the Chevon patent position was different. EV1 etc was sinplyh too early in the cycle make a difference

There is a good chance that everyone in this forum already knows about the EV1 documentary (http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/).

If you haven't yet watched it, you will be amazed to see just how high the EV1 demand was and how dismayed the owners were to have them all repossessed and crushed when the legal landscape changed.

It's all water under the bridge now, but it's interesting background.

BoatMad

edanto wrote: »

There is a good chance that everyone in this forum already knows about the EV1 documentary (http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/).

If you haven't yet watched it, you will be amazed to see just how high the EV1 demand was and how dismayed the owners were to have them all repossessed and crushed when the legal landscape changed.

It's all water under the bridge now, but it's interesting background.

sure I've seen it

again I dont beleiev we would have been significantly further along today , with or without the EV1