backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 141 comment(s) - last by barbh.. on Aug 6 at 6:12 PM

BMW will build 500 all-electric Minis
BMW is preparing a new "green" variant of its popular Mini

The fuel economy/eco-friendly push is in full effect these days in the auto industry. BMW is looking to boost its efforts in this field with a new variant of its popular Mini in the U.S. market.

According to Automotive News, BMW has plans to lease 490 all-electric Minis to California residents. Ten additional vehicles will be used on the auto show circuit to showcase BMW's prowess in zero-emissions vehicles.

According to sources close to the project, the Minis will be assembled in England, however, the engine, transmission, and fuel tank will not be installed into the chassis of each vehicle. Instead, each partially-assembled Mini will be shipped back to Germany where they will be equipped with electric motors and battery packs.

Other details of BMW's latest venture are rather scarce at the moment. BMW officials failed to confirm or deny the report and simply stated, "BMW will announce whether it will build electric vehicles or not later this year."

500 vehicles are definitely not enough to make a huge dent in BMW's efforts to produce more eco-friendly, but it's a start. BMW is making similar baby steps with its Hydrogen 7 luxury sedan. The Hydrogen 7, which is a heavily-modified 7-Series, features a 260 HP twelve-cylinder engine that can run on either on conventional premium gasoline or hydrogen at the push of a button.

BMW's niche efforts with an all-electric Mini and the Hydrogen 7 will join other efforts from General Motors with the Chevrolet Volt plug-in series-hybrid electric vehicle and Honda with the FCX hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
why limit it?
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 1
Why limit it to 500 cars? This is what we need worldwide, a lower cost but safe and good looking electric car that can be mass produced for under $20,000.
I assume by leasing, they can pull what GM did with its EV-1 when big oil says "these are getting too popular, it will cut into our profits".




RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 12:38:02 PM , Rating: 5
I doubt the cost of these cars is under $20,000.


RE: why limit it?
By daftrok on 7/9/2008 2:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
You never know. If the HP is around 70-100 and the range is around 200-250 miles then this would definitely be around 20-30k.


RE: why limit it?
By Doormat on 7/9/2008 2:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, even if you figure its 70% of the weight of a roadster with 70% of the performance, it would still need a 40kWh battery pack. $15,000.

If the Volt cant get below $40k with its 16kWh battery pack, this certainly cant.


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
What does the horsepower of these cars matter? The high cost of either NiCad or Lithium-ion batteries will drive the cost of these things up quite a bit. Under $30,000? Perhaps but then its not going to go very far. Considering the only other all electric car out there is $100,000, that makes me believe these will be far more. The Tesla only goes 200 miles with all its lithium ion batteries. The weight is comparable. So even if BMW used the same number of batteries, its only going to go as far as the Tesla. Sure the mini isn't made of really expensive materials like the materials but thats not the bulk of the cost.


RE: why limit it?
By daftrok on 7/9/2008 4:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
But you also have to realize that the Tesla is a beast. It goes 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. The reason why I believe that this car will probably be around 30 grand is because less horsepower means less energy needed which in turn means less battery. Horsepower is a major factor in determining the cost of any vehicle, especially an electrically powered one.


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 4:56:40 PM , Rating: 3
The Tesla gets to 60 quickly because its light and electric engines make all their torque at 0 rpm. Yes it probably has a larger electric engine than the Prius, but still.

Any full electric car is going to cost a lot if its going to have any kind of range. If its only got a 50-60 mile range then it might be under $30,000.

It doesn't really matter what it actually costs. They're only leasing them out. Then they're likely going to take them back and dispose of them.


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
And its not like the Tesla can achieve that 200 mile range with you testing out that 4 second 0-60 time.


RE: why limit it?
By Spuke on 7/9/2008 5:55:01 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt seriously that BMW will price this less than a fully equipped JCW version. This is a showpiece and a gauge of market interest. It will be priced accordingly. It WILL not be under $30k. Like someone else said, the price of the batteries alone is $15k.


RE: why limit it?
By jRaskell on 7/9/2008 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
The Tesla is capable of 0-60 in 4 seconds, but it will not have a 200 mile range while doing so. It'll only have a 200 mile range when driven modestly (ie using a fraction of it's available HP).

A 160hp electric motor operating at 10% of it's power isn't noticably less efficient than an 80hp electric motor operating at 20% of it's power. Both will draw similar amounts of current to generate similar levels of output power.

In the end, battery capacity is the primary factor in vehicle range. How powerful the drive motor is only affects how much a person can reduce that potential range with a lead foot.


RE: why limit it?
By Drexial on 7/10/2008 3:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
The Tesla is also $100,000 cause it's a start up company. Tesla had to start from scratch and repay investors.

BMW I think has the funds to just go for it. I see it being between $30-40k


RE: why limit it?
By OxBow on 7/11/2008 9:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
The question is moot. They are leasing them, not selling them. As such, there is no retail price.
The lease price will be to just offset the cost of this marketing move. This is just advertising, nothing less.


RE: why limit it?
By pauldovi on 7/9/2008 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oil companies don't make a significant amount of money off of gasoline sales. All their profits come from other petrolium derivatives.


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 4
They make quite a bit of money. They just make very low margins.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 6:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
I recently read that the production cost per gallon was around ~50 cent. Do You have any CO2 taxes and the like on fuel in the US or does the rest go to the company?


RE: why limit it?
By Rugar on 7/9/2008 8:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
You would have to give your source for anyone to provide useful comments on it, but without having a chance to read it I think your source is full of crap.

Just off the top of my head:
1 barrel = 42 gallons of crude oil. Even accounting for the energetic density of oil over gasoline and improved techniques in cracking, the most optimistic estimates of gasoline production put it at 1:1 oil:gasoline. Assume (for convenience) that a barrel of oil is running $126, then 1 gallon of gasoline would cost $3 in oil cost alone. ($126 a barrel / 42 gallons of gasoline = $3/gallon)

Do companies which explore, drill, and produce their own oil pay less? Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But I still doubt that number is ~50 cents. That would suggest a cost for oil of $21/barrel along with free refining and transport. Seems pretty unlikely stated like that doesn't it?


RE: why limit it?
By Rugar on 7/9/2008 8:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
After posting, I realized that I didn't actually answer your question. Sorry about that. The federal government charges a tax of 18.4 cents/gallon. Each state also charges taxes. Here in Texas it is a flat 20 cents/gallon but other states use various combinations of flat rates and sales taxes. California for instance charges a flat 18 cents/gallon but then adds 6% state sales tax, 1.25% county tax, local sales taxes and 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 9:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for replying. I really just wanted to know, since DK have taxes like 4-500%! (CO2 tax, greenhouse emission tax etc. which got added some Years ago. I worked almost 4 years at a Texaco station in the '90s here in DK. The price to Texaco pr. LITER was (in todays $) ~40 cents, while the price at the pump was like $2.

This article talks about a 45 cents for the gas. I think it was last week I read that Saudi Arabians fill at production cost, also on MSNBC, but I can't find it right now..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25589765/


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 9:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and an explanation of why high taxes might be good to some point:

"Europe's High Gas Taxes

Europe is a relatively efficient energy user and will likely continue to be so in coming decades. The EIA expects European energy demand to rise only 0.5% a year, with oil consumption up only 0.1% annually. In per-capita terms, however, the trend is similar to that in the U.S.

High taxes have made Europe more energy-efficient and its economies less sensitive to oil price hikes. Not only is energy a smaller share of GDP than in the U.S., but because of the taxes, a change in the oil price has much less impact, in percentage terms, on gasoline prices and, consequently, on demand. Thanks to their North Sea reserves, Britain and the Netherlands meet most of their energy needs domestically, and France requires relatively few imports because of its large nuclear power industry. Other European countries, however, depend heavily on energy imports and are thus experiencing major trade problems.

The European Central Bank [ECB], unlike the Federal Reserve, has elected to look at total rather than at core inflation. As a result, it will raise interest rates in response to higher energy costs -- in spite of its weak economies. We expect two rate hikes by the ECB, which will further strengthen the euro and damage European export competitiveness. Although this will not have a major impact on European economies, it is a reason to expect continued sluggish economic growth through 2009."

The rest of the article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25586783/


RE: why limit it?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 10:52:53 PM , Rating: 5
> "High taxes have made Europe more energy-efficient "

They've also kept the economy and per-capita wealth much smaller, as well as boosting unemployment and other negative economic indicators. That's what one calls a Pyrrhic victory.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 11:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, it's not good for employment. But I just read Bloomberg that the stocks made quite a rise, which gives money to hire people and keep production expanding. At the same time oil prices are dropping so it looks good. It might happen in the US too, even though Dow Jones made a small fall. Hopefully things will settle, and economies stablelize once again, so we can continue a life in peace and prosperity. As said in "First Contact": Well, we don't have money anymore :)


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 11:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I forgot, You're right that the average GDP are not as high as in the US. If You look at the EUs avg. it's 24.800, with low around 10.000 and high a bit more than 68.000. But this is also wher I think the EU is having it's main role, to average out the wealth to some extent, and opening up the new markets, paving a way for a better future for those eastern parts. If You look at the following table, it shows that some former poor countries gained well from being in. We still need Poland, Malta, Rumania and Bulgaria to catch up, but overall the right way.

Of course ther'll be flucations in economies as oil 'trips' and new technoligies are researched, but I don't think the big companies overlooked future decisions and ways of keeping the wheels going. At the moment it seems it all depends on the balance of diplomacy or war. I'm for the first.

Here are the EU numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Europe...


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 11:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
But You were maybe referring to the MS lawsuits, I'll guess. Well, I have on purpose not put word into those debates since law really doesn't interrest me THAT much. Heh, maybe that's why the German Police got Linux as system years ago, because they were tired of paying all these licensing fees. As I remember, it saved them around €5 mill. a year! But as to the current situation, I don't know if that's what it's basically about.


RE: why limit it?
By Rugar on 7/10/2008 9:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think looking at the Saudi price for gasoline is indicative of production costs. Just a quick troll through the interwebs found this reference (http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/UAE_has_lowest_sub... ) which indicates that the Saudis subsidize oil to the tune of $57 / barrel.

That alone doesn't explain the disparity in prices, but I'm sure being much closer to the tap has a role as well.


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 9:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
California's tax as of last year was 41 cents a gallon.

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-r...


RE: why limit it?
By Hiawa23 on 7/9/2008 1:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
you know darn well, those cars costs more than $20k


RE: why limit it?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Contrary to popular opinion, the oil companies do not have such sway. Their profit margins have been fairly constant throughout changes in oil supply/demand. They all have some level of investment in alternative fuels and will pour more into them as they become needed (if they want to survive anyway).

Who do the profits benefit anyhow? The majority of us -- at least those who own stock, directly or indirectly through mutual funds/401K. The oil companies are publicly traded.

There's no big conspiracy with the EV-1. It was expensive as heck for what it offered, making it a tough sell outside of environmentalist circles. It didn't make economic sense, especially after the somewhat absurd California requirements for them were defeated.

I'm assuming they're limiting it to 500 cars so they can get people to test them out basically -- similar to what Honda is doing with the FCX Clarity. They're probably taking a loss on the vehicles, but consider it a necessary R&D cost.

Give the alternatives time. If it were truly possible to make them viable today, we would be driving them already.


RE: why limit it?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 1:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, PR is the only things that count. Reality is only for TV shows, and even then it's not real.

Saw the British video review of the Toyota Prius yesterday. Auto-parking was neat, and such, but bottom line of the reviewer (which I found very disappointing) is that its performance was marginal, it was expensive, and its petrol mileage was no better than a conventionally engined Golf.


RE: why limit it?
By ultimaone on 7/9/2008 1:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
go watch "who killed the electric car"

and maybe it'll change your mind about it not being a big conspiracy, it wasn't just the EV-1 that was destroyed.
all the other car companies had electric cars, just like GM

its funny that they ALL destroyed their electric cars
really strange.....


RE: why limit it?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
That movie was debunked long ago. People weren't allowed to buy the cars for very good reason -- had GM even sold a single one, they would have been required by federal law to manufacture and stock spare parts for it for the next decade.


RE: why limit it?
By Screwballl on 7/9/2008 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 1
Where was it debunked? On some opinionated blog supporting big oil? On some site that was paid off by petroleum interests?

Anyone with half a brain could see that big oil told them to stop because it was too successful. It would have gotten too popular too quick and would have meant a quick death for big oil and thus a majority of the automaker's companies as well... they had plans to shaft us at the pump that was still in the early stages and now we are seeing rhe effects of this plan... that is why the electric and alternative fuel based cars continued in Japan and outside of the US where big oil does not have as big of a pull...


RE: why limit it?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 3:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Anyone with half a brain could see that big oil told them to stop because it was too successful. It would have gotten too popular too quick"

I realize how attractive a conspiracy theory is to some minds, but no corporation is going to give up a succesful product potentially worth tens of billions just because "big oil" begs a favor.

And there wasn't exactly any danger of the EV1 getting "too popular". The range of the car, particularly in poor weather was abysmal, and the cost was very high and would have been far higher still had it not been subsidized by GM. And all for what? Gas was $1.50 a gallon at the time...so cheap as to make the enormous drawbacks of electric cars wholly unpalatable.

GM spent billions on electric car developement. But with the battery technology of the time, and ultra-cheap gasoline available, such cars were doomed from the start.


RE: why limit it?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 3:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where was it debunked? On some opinionated blog supporting big oil? On some site that was paid off by petroleum interests?


Character assassinate by claiming the other side is paid off by "big oil". How original. Nobody who puts out a documentary can have an agenda or be interested in making money off it...

A good read:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2006/06/gms-ev1----w...


RE: why limit it?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 3:36:14 PM , Rating: 1
Well at least your name on this site runs true with your ideas.

You just cannot accept the fact that oil companies are not the evil corporations that the liberal media portrays them to be. Are they complete innocents? No. Are they masterminding a global conspiracy to stay in business? No. They are simply a business that operates to make money. Same as any other. And they operate that business at a far lower profit margin than most.

If there's any conspiracy here, its being orchestrated by environmentalists to get us to do what they want. Abandon fossil fuels. Gas prices would be far lower if not for the environmental lobby blocking for the past 30 years the building of any new refineries and offshore drilling. But its actually more the former. We import so much fuel now because we don't have the refining capacity to make it ourselves.


RE: why limit it?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 3:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just want to add that transporting refined fuel is more expensive than transporting crude. Hence the importance of having refineries here.


RE: why limit it?
By Solandri on 7/9/2008 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
That really galls me about the current situation with fuel prices. For decades environmentalists and Democrats have been saying that fossil fuels are too cheap, that our society has gotten lazy with cheap energy, and that it needs to become more expensive so we think seriously about conservation and alternative energy sources. But now that it's really happened and we're seeing some of the ugly consequences... they're trying to figure out how to blame oil corporations and the Republicans for it.

I've always been for a cleaner environment and alternative energies. But I'm not going to lie - I staunchly believe the current economic pain is a price we'd have to pay anyway at some point in order to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and arrive at a much better future. If you're going to advocate something, at least have the balls to accept responsibility for the negative consequences.


RE: why limit it?
By Spuke on 7/9/2008 6:44:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you're going to advocate something, at least have the balls to accept responsibility for the negative consequences.
I agree. But I disagree with having to feel pain to get people to change. Change requires going from A to B to C to D. You can't just jump to D, you must go through B and C first. You can make it less painful by performing the steps over time. Gas is going to go up over time and over time people will adjust accordingly and it will be in their budgets, corporations will have time to plan and find new materials or new processes. One day you'll wake up and we'll be there.

But now? The shock treatment? All you're doing is shitting where you eat. And quite frankly the only people hurt are the lower middle class and poor. Everyone else just buys another car or slaps some solar panels on their house.


RE: why limit it?
By Sulphademus on 7/10/2008 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Shock Treatment" is the only treatment which is going to work for something like this. If energy prices go up by 1%, people just shrug it off, even if it happens year after year. A 10% change will make people take notice. A 50% change will make people scream.

Hey you, conserve energy *poke*
vs
Hey you, conserve energy *swift kick to the nads*

Most people dont notice the tiny changes.


RE: why limit it?
By Hiawa23 on 7/10/2008 8:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
For decades environmentalists and Democrats have been saying that fossil fuels are too cheap, that our society has gotten lazy with cheap energy, and that it needs to become more expensive so we think seriously about conservation and alternative energy sources.

the blame game is getting ridiculous. It hasn't been just the democrats. Many presidents, Democrat & Republican have come through the White House & done nothing about getting us off of foreign oil, or have some sort of energy policy so just singling out the democrats is crazy but I see it is the popular thing to do these days. It aint just the democrats faults, it's all the powers to be that run this country & who has run this country for decades.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/2008 6:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
You don't HAVE that much oil to refine. >That's< the problem. The US has been dependent on foreign oil since 1974.


RE: why limit it?
By Rugar on 7/9/2008 8:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... true and untrue. The US certainly HAS more oil to refine. For various reasons, we have just chosen not to recover it. Big difference. Further, we have chosen not to include recoverable oil from oil shale in our reserve calculation even though it represents a roughly 100 year supply at current consumption levels. Nor do we include potential use of coal for oil.

It's there, the US has just chosen not to go after it.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/10/2008 2:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
Is oil shale this tar-like oil-sand, or is it in Canada only? The problem as I know is that it's pretty expensive to extract it?


RE: why limit it?
By Screwballl on 7/10/2008 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
with the massive profits big oil is making nowadays, it is a worthy venture now... and it is not only in Canada, some in North Dakota are making money off of it too

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_110177.html


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/11/2008 2:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
That was a nice article, thanks :)

(I remeber I read about the canadian tar-sand about 7-8 years ago but of course tech gets better).


RE: why limit it?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 4:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, it was debunked very easily and prolifically.

Secondly your idea about :

quote:
would have meant a quick death for big oil and thus a majority of the automaker's companies as well...


doesn't even make sense. Why would GM give a rip? In the scenario you are trying to portray GM would have taken over the entire auto market with their electric car. They rule the world. GM would have a problem with that scenario? You're arguing that they'd be utterly afraid of it (and aren't now, btw, with the Volt). They'd have given anything to have successfully achieved the scenario you say they were afraid of. So I take your argument as totally unconvincing. If the movie presented this idea, that says how weak their arguments were.

P.S. - If it were such a great car they'd just crank up production of the already-done design yesterday to fight Toyota (etc) instead of developing the Volt, or was the design paperwork burnt as to keep it secret?


RE: why limit it?
By blaster5k on 7/9/2008 5:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the amount that "big oil" would have to pay to make it worth the auto manufacturers' while to forgo getting into a growing market would be absolutely staggering. They'd have to give them more than anything they stood to make in the next 10, 20 years, or more.

That number would be well into the trillions if electric cars were really the wave of the future. Even if the oil companies could cough that up, they'd still come out ahead spending the money to get into other businesses. They're not that dumb.


RE: why limit it?
By 4play on 7/9/2008 3:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well then they should've continued to produce them sell them and stock spare parts, no? Instead they completely axed the whole program all together.

I personally believe that it was CARB's fault (due to obvious pressure/lobbying), as they dropped the 0 emissions mandate. Immedietly afterwards ALL manufacturers dropped their EVs.


RE: why limit it?
By Solandri on 7/9/2008 3:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
You just gave the best evidence debunking the electric car conspiracy:
quote:
I personally believe that it was CARB's fault (due to obvious pressure/lobbying), as they dropped the 0 emissions mandate. Immedietly afterwards ALL manufacturers dropped their EVs.

So either ALL manufacturers are conspiring against EVs, or they just didn't make economic sense at that point in time.

You can't legislate reality. You can pass a law saying there must be EVs or flying cars, or that gravity must be reduced so people aren't so overweight, but it's probably not going to make it so. What you can legislate are incentives or disincentives. Make it cheaper to put electric technologies in cars, or more expensive to make/sell/use petroleum-powered vehicles.


RE: why limit it?
By 4play on 7/9/2008 4:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
But they axed the whole program. They promoted hydrogen cars as the future tech that will one day save us; they spend billions in R&D on it. But they already had something as green with the infrastructure in place (power lines) and they never touted it.

Why is it that they wanted to develop hydrogen so bad, even though it requires a non-existent infrastructure and has no benefit over EV's (minus the charge time).

I never even knew that the EV1 was sold to the public till I saw the film, yet I knew all about the Hy-wire.

As far as conspiracies go I'm sure Oil companies prefer hydrogen tech as hydrogen would obviously be distributed at gas stations, while EV owners would charge at home.


RE: why limit it?
By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 5:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure which "they" are doing the axing, but the various motorcar companies (other than Ford who just sits back and waits for the others to figure things out) have programs in multiple fields and opposing directions. As the head honcho of GM said in a youtube interview a while back, they aren't putting all of their eggs in a single basket. They're going in multiple directions and hoping one of them is the winner.

As to big industry influence, it doesn't matter which way wins, there will still be a huge amount of energy being generated and distributed to move the cars around -- and there will be huge monies paying for it. So if big oil doesn't like something, there's big-something-else who does (whomever who would be replacing them). Only solutions like having 80000% efficient solar panels on the car that can power the engines real-time indefinitely would get rid of big-power business influence, but even then the power-panel businesses backed by major corporations would then be involved.


RE: why limit it?
By soloman02 on 7/9/2008 6:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen will NEVER take off. Why? Because someone way back when (IE: 30+ years ago), successfully lobbied congress and now there is a federal law banning the distribution of hydrogen and gasoline at the same station. Either you serve hydrogen or gasoline, not both. This means that it will cost tens of billions to deploy hydrogen infrastructure since new stations on new property have to be built. It also means that existing stations have to be converted to serve only hydrogen, and that is still rather expensive.

Now with all the profits the oil companies are making they could afford this however there is one small problem. The vast majority or oil companies do not own the stations. The gas stations are basically franchises where the oil company leases out the right to use the "Mobil" name. Most gas station owners do not have the funds to embark on retrofitting their station for hydrogen only.


RE: why limit it?
By Solandri on 7/9/2008 6:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it that they wanted to develop hydrogen so bad, even though it requires a non-existent infrastructure and has no benefit over EV's (minus the charge time).

Because EVs are essentially a "solved" problem. We know how to make highly efficient electric motors, regenerative braking, plug-in chargers, even inductive chargers. The efficiencies are already so high (except for inductive charging) that you can't get much return for your R&D dollars. The only thing holding back EVs is battery technology, which already has plenty of R&D demand from hybrids. You don't need to sell pure EVs to drive battery research. (In fact, the hybrid was the solution to the pure EV's battery capacity problem.)

Hydrogen fuel cells OTOH are a relatively new technology with lots of potential for improvement for each R&D dollar spent. Why spend billions of dollars trying to improve something from 94% efficiency to 95% efficiency, when you can spend it on something which could go from 20% efficiency to 50% efficiency?

I'm sure the oil companies would prefer hydrogen vehicles over electric vehicles too. But the oil companies don't make cars. Car companies make cars. And the car companies will make whatever cars make them the most money, be they gasoline, diesel, electric, hybrid, or hydrogen.


RE: why limit it?
By Akazar on 7/9/2008 10:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
If there is no conspiracy explain why we haven't had any huge increase in mpg on cars in the last ten years. We've huge increases in computers, cell phones, even car electronics but still the avg mpg of a normal car is pretty much the same as in the 90s. And that's really why gas is so high. More cars all over the world. Yet no increases in mpg.

We even usb popcorn makers, and robot vacuum cleaners and best we can get is 25-35mpg on a small gas car?


RE: why limit it?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 11:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "If there is no conspiracy explain why we haven't had any huge increase in mpg on cars in the last ten years. We've huge increases in computers, cell phone, even car electronics".

Cars are not computers. Electronics is a much newer technology than the internal combustion engine -- progress is therefore much faster. Seen many advances in toilet technology lately? Same concept.

But more importantly, we *have* seen many advances in engine efficiency. The problem is those have been largely eaten up by government mandates for emissions and safety, as well as our new reformulated gasolines which are substantially less energetic than the gas sold in the 1970s.

Given your average car today weighs about 50% more than a similar vehicle from the 1980s, emits anywhere from 1/10 to 1/100 the emissions, and runs on a gas that, while cleaner, is inferior for efficiency -- I'd say that achieving about the same MPG is an amazing accomplishment.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/10/2008 12:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Seen many advances in toilet technology lately?"

I'll bet You can in Japan :))


RE: why limit it?
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/10/2008 11:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
That and the fact that IC engines are inherently utterly inefficient. The best engines out there don't even get near 40% efficiency, that is, 40% of the energy going to the wheels generating motion, and the other 60% wasted as heat.
In fact I've read that most indirect injection IC engines don't even reach a 30% efficiency.

I, by now, don't care as much about emissions as for efficiency.

Also I don't believe in any conspiracy here, it was easier to stick and gradually patch a proven, really old technology like the ICE without really thinking about alternative ways of propulsion.

This is the reason I'm mildly excited about all electric cars while hybrids just make me yawn... All of this speaking from a technological point of view, of course, not about fuel consumption or emission figures.

I think the car industry needs to really wake up and come up with completely new propulsion schemes, rather than just worry about the alternative fuel factor while keeping some sort of ICE dependency.


RE: why limit it?
By Spuke on 7/10/2008 5:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the car industry needs to really wake up and come up with completely new propulsion schemes
What tech do you propose they use and are going to buy it once it's available?


RE: why limit it?
By Spuke on 7/10/2008 5:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Crap! Are YOU going to buy this tech once it's available?


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: why limit it?
By Jay2tall on 7/10/2008 9:01:42 AM , Rating: 1
I saw that film on On-Demand a while back. VERY interesting. I think the death of the EV-1 was caused by Big Oil and the Government. They made laws which caused GM to basically not want to mass produce the car. No one was allowed to buy the car, it was a lease only vehicle. The interviews are very interesting because everyone who owned the vehicles, loved them. Search EV-1 on the internet, there are several sites about how this vehicles was so fantastic. GM even created an elaborate infrastructure to charge them at specific locations in the California area. All a big waste when they canned the car. If we had this technology back then, and was PROVEN, what is the holdup now? People are very leery to step away from a gas car to all electric, but that is where it will go. As batteries become smaller, lighter, cheaper, and more recyclable, you will see all electric cars pop up all over. I think Big Oil is starting to loose its grip on car manufactures like GM, Ford, and Chrysler. They are not selling their gas guzzling cars, when Big Brother Oil is racking in at $4 a gallon? I thing this is the difference between the EV-1 time and the current time. Gas was not $4 then, it is now, and it's crunch time. When was the last time you saw BMW make anything that was a flop? I think BMW it testing with these handful of vehicles. You can road test a vehicle all you want on the BMW testing grounds, but you can never recreate actual driving condition or wear and tear endured by the average or abusive vehicle owner. The mini is a retro, well liked, vehicle. It is new to the US but has a very good history in England. It's size and popularity make is a good candidate for an all electric vehicle produced by BMW. Leave it to the Germans to do it right. They do make great vehicles. Japan does do. They are both very innovative in their thinking. We may have invented the car, but they made it better. History tends to repeat itself, hopefully this is the case.


RE: why limit it?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2008 6:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, but the only thing more gay than a Mini, is an electric Mini.

Figures that it would go to the gayest state in the country.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/10/2008 12:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well - it happens that this "gay" mini will stand up to the acceleration of "not-so-gay" cars. How gay is that, for a change :)


RE: why limit it?
By Spuke on 7/10/2008 9:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting your acceleration numbers from? I haven't seen any.


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/11/2008 2:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
Common sense :)


RE: why limit it?
By Clauzii on 7/11/2008 2:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
RE: why limit it?
By Haltech on 7/9/2008 7:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
its called test marketing. See what the future customer thinks, what needs changing/fixing adding subtracting. General opinion of the car itself. If it turns out if nobody likes the idea of plugging in cars its best to flop on a smaller project than a mass-marketed full scale project. And only gas companies only matter in lobbyist money, not neccesarily actually the cars. Lobbyist killed the electric car in my opinion.


RE: why limit it?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/10/2008 7:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is a test market vehicle. They don't know if the technology will work, and they are testing the vehicle on a receptive audience to work out the bugs. If they decide to go forward (like GM didn't with the EV1) then they will ramp up to worldwide production levels, and probably jack up the price of the car, to boot!


Hopefully
By fic2 on 7/9/2008 2:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully it will be something like this:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds...

electric Mini with 4x160HP electric motors and an on-board ICE to charge the batteries. 80 mpg!




RE: Hopefully
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/9/2008 3:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, but there's something I don't quite get:

A car the size of a mini, with 640hp, should be able to beat the hell out of a 620hp McLaren F1 that has a top speed of 230mph vs 150 on the mini, and a a 0-60 time of 3.2" vs this mini's 4.5".

Where do all those huge hp get lost on this mini, specially considering the fact that electric engines deliver lots of torque and in a pretty constant manner, contrary to ICE engines which most of the time display steep power and torque delivery curves


RE: Hopefully
By Cullinaire on 7/9/2008 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
The top speed is dependent on aerodynamics - drag & downforce. Certainly the Mini could be made to go faster, but would it be safe?

Acceleration is more than just power - I am quite certain that the F1's tires are many times the size of the (upgraded) Mini's. The Mini could have 10x the power, but if it can't transmit it to the pavement it will not accelerate any faster.


RE: Hopefully
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/9/2008 6:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
In this case aerodynamics are not the problem. I'm sure that the mini's SCx (frontal area surface times drag coefficient) is about the same as the F1's (because, even though the Mclaren surely has a better Cx, its frontal area surface is not as it is a much bigger car).

I buy the idea that in the case of this mini, the max RPM of the electric motor is the limiting factor as you can't easily implement gear ratios having 4 different motors, so they chose a single fixed ratio that would allow it to have a good acceleration and a good top speed, but not the absolut best for either.

About the wheel size, only makes a difference when the weight distribution makes it necessary. Otherwise, the extra grip of wider tires helps you more on cornering and directional stability at high speeds than on straight line acceleration, as the contact patch (the part of a tyre that stays in contact with the ground) helps to attain a better traction when it is longer than wider. A too wide contact patch won't give you a much better handling and what's worse, will diminish traction on low adherence conditions.

Acceleration is basically determined by power to weight ratio, and transfer ratios. The problem of wheels impeding a better acceleration happens when the applied torque is high enough to make the wheel spin, and that happens even on supercars with ultra wide and pretty big wheels. That which should make the spin less likely is a totally slick tyre and a compound soft enough to make the wheel more "adhesive" to the road's surface, rather than just the width.

For example, on F1 cars, nowadays they don't have wheels as wide as they were able to have back on the 80's, but even then today's F1 cars are even faster than they were back then.


RE: Hopefully
By fic2 on 7/9/2008 7:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nice comment. I know when you were talking about wheel spin it wasn't from the point of view of electric cars since electric cars generally don't have wheel spin - it is taken out by the software.


RE: Hopefully
By Spuke on 7/9/2008 9:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Gas cars can have wheel spin removed also. It's called traction control. Some cars TC's are more draconian than others. There's no magic TC for electric cars.


RE: Hopefully
By masher2 (blog) on 7/9/2008 11:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
About the wheel size, only makes a difference when the weight distribution makes it necessary. Otherwise, the extra grip of wider tires helps you more on cornering and directional stability at high speeds than on straight line acceleration, as the contact patch (the part of a tyre that stays in contact with the ground) helps to attain a better traction when it is longer than wider
Basic physics: the size of the contact patch doesn't affect traction -- a larger patch means less weight per unit area, which exactly cancels out the extra area in contact.

This only becomes untrue in a few special cases. A larger contact patch means more rubber in contact with the road...in cases where the tire is skidding (hard cornering) or accelerating fast enough to spin the tires, it means more rubber to heat up and melt, which means better traction. In the case of wet road conditions, the opposite is usually true...a smaller, skinnier tire is going to grip better, as the extra weight per unit area prevents hydroplaning.

But for general driving conditions -- larger tires do *not* equal more traction.


RE: Hopefully
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/10/2008 12:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Completely true, thanks for the addendum. That's about what I tried to say up there, but didn't express it clearly.

And just another bit:

When I said that weight and weight distribution can justify bigger wheels, it is partly because of the load a tire can withstand. As you correctly stated, a wider tire distributes less weight per area of surface. That's why wider tires usually have higher load ratings and also higher speed ratings, as the heat from higher rolling speeds can be dissipated better on a tire that is under less pressure and has a greater overall size, including the radius (that's because, obviously, a wheel with a bigger perimeter spins slower than a smaller one at the same speed).

The thing I'm not too sure about is this: is it correct to assume that a given tire has a maximum contact patch size, and so different weight distributions actually need wider tires to keep that contact patch size within acceptable limits?


RE: Hopefully
By jRaskell on 7/9/2008 5:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's the beauty of gear boxes. That Mini has 4 electric motors tied directly to it's 4 wheels. The McLaren has a 620hp engine that goes through a 6 speed gear box to the drive wheels.

On the launch, gear multiplication provides the McLaren with FAR more torque to the pavement than the Mini is capable of. As it shifts through each gear, the advantage diminishes and fades, but only well after it hits 60mph.

Because the Mini does not have a gear box, it's top speed is directly limited by the max RPMs of it's motors. This is what we call gear limited, not aero limited. Because the McLaren has 6 gears available, it's got a much higher top speed.

At best, the Mini will have better mid-range acceleration than the McLaren. And, of course, better fuel economy. Even though electric motors generate the same torque throughout their entire RPM range, there are still advantages to pumping that power through a gearbox. That's difficult to do with 4 seperate motors each power an individual wheel though.


RE: Hopefully
By rcc on 7/9/2008 5:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but your ICE is RPM limited, not too many can run at 20,000 RPM. Electric motors don't have that problem. A gearbox is necessary for an ICE car, and I can see where it could be nice elsewhere. But it is a source of power transfer inefficiency as well.


RE: Hopefully
By Spuke on 7/9/2008 9:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
You need a transmission in an electric car too. See Tesla. Where are you guys getting this stuff?


RE: Hopefully
By rcc on 7/10/2008 7:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, you don't.

Tesla choose to use one. They have a single electric motor connected to a drive line, etc. Very different than an electric motor on each wheel.

In essence, they are making a car with an electric motor. Not an electric "native mode" car.


RE: Hopefully
By hippypig on 7/9/2008 9:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say that car, if real, will make someone billions.
Just build it and sell it in the usa. At anywhere near a reasonable price.
You're Rick James,!!!


This would be the perfect car for me.
By redsquid5 on 7/9/2008 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
My commute is through on narrow, winding roads in hilly country and I get horrible gas milage as I alternately power uphill and brake downhill. The distance I travel would be well within the range of a moderate sized battery pack. Like most families, we have two cars - the other car being a hybrid Civic - so when we need to do the 400 mile trip in a day, we use that car.
I think there are many folks in a similar situation, with the option to have a mini-car with limited range for commute purposes. I've thought about getting a cycle, but that doesn't work for safety and weather reasons, unfortunately.
So what would I pay for the car? I get 25mpg, at 12,500 miles/year, $4.50 gallon gas (CA), thats $2250. I've seen figures for other electric cars at 5 miles/kwh, so electricity at $.10 a kwh would cost me (12,500/5)*.1 = $250
So savings of $2000 a year. I'm cheap, so I'd want to be paid back in 7 years, so $14,000 more than the equivalent mini. ( The gas Mini is rated 27 mpg city and requires premium fuel ) Mini MSRP is $18,000; so $32,000 roughly.
I wonder if they can get anywhere near that?




RE: This would be the perfect car for me.
By thornburg on 7/9/2008 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what would I pay for the car? I get 25mpg, at 12,500 miles/year, $4.50 gallon gas (CA), thats $2250. I've seen figures for other electric cars at 5 miles/kwh, so electricity at $.10 a kwh would cost me (12,500/5)*.1 = $250 So savings of $2000 a year. I'm cheap, so I'd want to be paid back in 7 years, so $14,000 more than the equivalent mini. ( The gas Mini is rated 27 mpg city and requires premium fuel ) Mini MSRP is $18,000; so $32,000 roughly. I wonder if they can get anywhere near that?


You forgot to factor in financing. If you are paying 5% (or any other amount greater than 0%) annual interest on the $32000 vs $18000, the compounding of the interest makes it a nonlinear comparison. I'll take a shot in the dark and guess that puts you around $29000 instead of $32000.


By Oregonian2 on 7/9/2008 2:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
And as a general comment for calculation, although 10-cents/kwh is a good number that's near the US national average, it does vary quite a bit (New England being nearly double the average). Here's a good reference:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table...

P.S. - Basically the closer you get to the PNW the cheaper it gets. Hydro-power in action, I think (also note that local prices vary wildly depending upon area, PNW publicly owned districts who can best benefit from cheap hydro-power for political reasons REALLY get the great rates).


RE: This would be the perfect car for me.
By kilkennycat on 7/9/2008 1:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
And when you are stopped on that hilly road late at night with no power, you had better hope that AAA has a handy diesel-electric generator and several hours to recharge your batteries. Or a handy flat-bed breakdown truck, instead of the friendly gas-can. Also, you had better hope that the electric companies don't pull an Enron trick and jack up the overnight power rates. Sundry electric company CEOs are probably rubbing their hands together in glee anticipating all those captive suckers with all-electric cars.....

As for a Mini hybrid variant instead of all electric... well there might be enough space for the batteries by removing the back seat.

BTW, the original ( non-BMW) Mini was a very fuel-efficient car -- so removing the performance bells and whistles (er, modest engine running on regular fuel...) and some of the associated weight in the existing (BMW) Mini actually would be far, far more sensible than this electric-car gimmick.

The Europeans have had to put up with gas prices double that of the US for umpteen years. Why not take a leaf from their book with regard to the vehicle types and mixes? For cars, a huge majority are gas or diesel with engine capacities less than 2 litres, with relatively very few hybrids thrown in. Sensible fuel conservation has been their key for many years. They also have car-license and other tax structures that severely penalise the owners of gas-guzzlers.

However, the US populace seem to be suckers for poorly thought-out quick-fix "hi-tech solutions" and not willing to learn from the long-term experience of other nations. And there are only too many companies willing to pander to that mentality.


By V3ctorPT on 7/9/2008 2:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
My car is a 1.3 turbo diesel engine with 75bhp... 4.5L-5.2L/100Km... The tax on this car is very low, and it really is a very reliable car... I pay 49€/year in the "car Tax", as a friend of mine with a BMW 320CDi (diesel) pays 180€/year... bigger engine, bigger tax, that is the rule here in Europe...


By Solandri on 7/9/2008 4:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Internal combustion engines (ICE, both gas and diesel) operate inefficiently most of the time. They need sufficient low-end torque and power to provide the performance people want, but very little of that power is needed for cruising (a small sedan only needs about 25 hp at highway speeds). Power is torque (energy from cylinder combustion) x RPM, so when starting from a standstill, the low RPM automatically means low power. You need to rev up the engine and your speed in order to get to the meatier part of the power curve. But once you get up to speed, you spend most of your time driving around with the engine RPMs in the weakest part of the torque curve (where it's operating inefficiently).

Electric motors don't have this problem. They can instantly produce their maximum power starting at zero RPM. So a hybrid really is an optimal solution from an engineering standpoint. You use the electric motor to provide gobs of torque and power at low speeds when people want acceleration and responsiveness. The smaller ICE motor provides the endurance needed for long-range cruising. Instead of having to design an ICE with two power peaks (one for acceleration, one for cruising), you only need to design it with one power peak. The electric motor takes care of the second power peak. So now your ICE is more efficient as well. The two technologies combined supplement each other almost perfectly. It really is a match made in heaven.

And braking is where the vast majority of energy gets wasted (converted to heat) in city driving. Thus far you need an electric motor for regenerative braking. There's no way to do it with an ICE yet (a flywheel has been suggested).

The only reason hybrids didn't take off in Europe is because battery technology hadn't progressed to the point where they were viable until the last 10 years. (Some would argue they're still not economically viable without some sort of government subsidy.)


RE: This would be the perfect car for me.
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2008 4:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
As a side question, the gas mini needs premium? I never knew that. Pretty crappy for a car with so little power.


By Spuke on 7/9/2008 7:04:28 PM , Rating: 2