Multi-day BMW i3 test drive!

[Anna Nguyen]

BMW is offering multi-day test drive of the BMW i3:
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/i3/BMWi3/BMWi3ExtendedTestDrive.aspx?mobileoverride=true&source=bmw02i3cextest&origin=bmw02i3cextest

--
Anna Nguyen

[Willie McKemie]

Does anyone know when/if these might be available in the Austin area?
I have a need for a ~100 mile EV. Since Nissan screwed me so badly on
my Leaf battery, I will not again be buying from Nissan.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "AustinLeaf" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to austinleaf+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
ONWARD! Through the fog!

[Andy Nguyen]

Willie, didn't you get a Tesla?

Anna Nguyen \ aqnaqn at gmail dot com

[Willie]

On 09/15/2014 11:58 AM, Andy Nguyen wrote:

Willie, didn't you get a Tesla?

Yes.  IMHO, you can't have too many EVs.

[Anna Nguyen]

You do know that you can only drive one at a time, right?  :)

[Sam Ritter]

I signed up for a 3 day test drive in early October.  I asked for one with racing stripes.

-Sam

[Sam Ritter]

I test drove a BMW i3 from the dealer for a three-day weekend.  Very enjoyable.

Plus's:

* 70 more horsepower

* 500 lbs lighter

* major attraction factor (if you care about those kinds of things)

* way better handling than the Leaf

* way better acceleration than the Leaf

* better fit and finish than the Leaf

* optional 2 cylinder gas engine generator (for 50 extra miles) if you run out of juice

* bigger front seats than the Leaf

* more fun to drive than the Leaf (mostly due to acceleration and suspension)

* a bit more range than the Leaf (even w/o the gas engine) - maybe 80 miles

Neg's:

* $50k w/ gas engine and nice extras - the gas engine is $5k of that

* smaller back seat than the Leaf

* smaller trunk than the Leaf

* poorer A/C than the Leaf

* gas engine is really only for occasional use, not for distance driving.  With small gas tank, 50 miles per tank is about it.  So, longer Texas-size trips are still out.

* really not much more range than the Leaf to be excited about

I encourage electric car enthusiasts to check it out, nevertheless, particularly with BMW's generous test drive policies.

-Sam

[Peter Joseph]

Sam,   That is a great review from an actual EV driver.   Appreciate you taking the time to write this.

The i3 comes about as not much of an upgrade from the Leaf.    Tesla has left everyone far behind.   The Model S is the car to get.

Peter

2011 SL, 48k miles, 3 bars lost

Range down to ~52 miles (and it is not even cold yet)

[Andy Nguyen]

​On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Sam Ritter <shockwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    I test drove a BMW i3 from the dealer for a three-day weekend.  Very enjoyable.

Good review, Sam.  Thanks.

I have a couple of other observations:

The i3's "range remaining" prediction seems WAY more predictable than the LEAF's (but that's not necessarily the same as "more accurate").  My couple of charged-to-full events showed a range of about 75 miles.  Both the range and the battery gauge dwindles at about the same rate; both are more believable/linear than the LEAF's.  I did not empty the battery enough for the gas engine to kick in so I don't know if the gauge is actually accurate or not.  Did you ever get to the point where the gas engine kicks in?

The front wheels have way less toe in (possibly even some toe out) than the LEAF, which makes for quick initial turn-in, at the expense of slight dartiness at really high speeds.  Not surprising, since less toe in/more toe out is the classic remedy for steering/turn response for a MacPherson front suspension.

The sticking points for me remain:

1.  I'd take a !@#$%^& bath on the LEAF if I sell/trade it in now.

2.  The i3 makes even less financial sense than the LEAF.  I wonder if its resale value will be any better than the LEAF's...

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Peter Joseph <pjos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Model S is the car to get.

Not for me :) .  Any vehicle, let alone an EV, that weighs 4600+ pounds just doesn't sit right with me.  (The Tesla S weighs 4647 lbs.)  It's anathema to everything I value in my vehciles:  efficiency, utility, and joy to drive.  An EV weighing almost 2000 lbs more than the i3 just boggles the mind.

BTW, the Tesla S's battery warranty does not cover diminished capacity:
"Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT [sic] covered under this Battery Limited Warranty."​

​  (page 34)​

​​

[Willie]

On 10/15/2014 09:09 PM, Peter Joseph wrote:
>
> 2011 SL, 48k miles, 3 bars lost
> Range down to ~52 miles (and it is not even cold yet)
>

Has Nissan offered you any relief?

When I bought my Leaf, 3+ years ago, I expected/hoped larger capacity
and better batteries would be available in 5+ years. I would probably
still be driving my Leaf, waiting for those better batteries, had the
original battery held it's capacity.

Andy said:
Not for me :) . Any vehicle, let alone an EV, that weighs 4600+ pounds
just doesn't sit right with me. (The Tesla S weighs 4647 lbs.) It's
anathema to everything I value in my vehciles: efficiency, utility, and
joy to drive. An EV weighing almost 2000 lbs more than the i3 just
boggles the mind.

Maybe you haven't driven a Tesla? If you can come 30-35 miles south of
Austin, I offer you a test drive. You can find me on plugshare.com near
Dale (between Lockhart and Bastrop). I can charge you while here. I
generally get 250-300 wh/m. Slow driving in optimal conditions moves it
down around 200 wh/m. I don't think a Leaf does any better than that.

[Sam Ritter]

Andy,

Good info on the steering of the i3.

I "edmunded" the 2011 Leaf value - trade-in is nearly $14k!  Ouch.

Yeah, I'm afraid I can't see the i3 in my future, unless range increases or price decreases.  I hope the smaller, cheaper Tesla becomes a reality about the time that affordable replacement batteries for the Leaf are a thing.

I can dream.  Until then, I suppose I'm going to adjust my lifestyle over the next couple of years to ever-smaller concentric circles around my house.

-Sam

[Anna Nguyen]

On Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:52:01 AM UTC-5, mckemie wrote:
> Andy said:

Just a side note: my name is "Anna" now.  I don't know why it's still showing in places as "Andy".  AFAICT, all my Google profile info shows "Anna".  Ditto my driver's license.  :)

> > Not for me :) .  Any vehicle, let alone an EV, that weighs 4600+ pounds
> > just doesn't sit right with me.  (The Tesla S weighs 4647 lbs.)  It's
> > anathema to everything I value in my vehciles: efficiency, utility, and
> > joy to drive.  An EV weighing almost 2000 lbs more than the i3 just
> > boggles the mind.
>
> Maybe you haven't driven a Tesla?

I have not.  It doesn't change that fact that it weighs 4600+ pounds.  :)

From all the road tests that I've read, the Tesla S can get up and go in a straight line:  at 4.1 sec 0-60, it's within a hair of the Audi S7, a 420 bhp 4350-lbs behemoth.  It seems to be a great handler.  Teslas's first effort at a practical EV (price not withstanding) is nothing short of amazing.  They hit several jackpots: styling, power, handling, amenities.  Even the Supercharger Network seems to be well on its way to completion and will make coast-to-coast feasible (well, assuming you have a Tesla S P100).

I still don't like it on philosophical grounds:  there is absolute no need/reason for any personal transport to weigh 4600+ pounds, let alone one that is supposed environmentally friendly.  There is no getting around the pure physics of moving a 4600+ lbs mass off a dead stop, or flinging it around the turns.  It necessarily takes more energy to accelerate that mass.  To control that mass on the road and around turns, it necessarily takes bigger and stiffer springs (steel, or air in the case of the S) and dampers with higher damping rate, which springs and dampers in turn add weight.  Said stiffer springs in turn results in more road and suspension noises which in turn necessitates more sound proofing, which again, adds weight.  Similarly, to decelerate that mass, it takes bigger brakes; again more weight.  In short, making a vehicle heavier incurs all kinds of penalty.

The LEAF is 3300+ pounds and that already grates on me.  The BMW i3, at 2800 lbs give-or-take, is beginning to resemble an environmentally sensible personal transport.  (BTW, the battery pack in the top-of-the-line Tesla S weighs 1300 lbs, almost half the weight of the i3!  That is just madness!)

The LEAF is 3300+ pounds and that already grates on me.  The BMW i3, at 2800 lbs give-or-take, is beginning to resemble an environmentally sensible personal transport.  (BTW, the battery pack in the top-of-the-line Tesla S weighs 1300 lbs, almost half the weight of the i3!  That is just madness!)

> If you can come 30-35 miles south of
> Austin, I offer you a test drive.  You can find me on plugshare.com near
> Dale (between Lockhart and Bastrop). I can charge you while here.

I might take you up on that offer...  :)  A fall drive in the Hill Country...

>  I
> generally get 250-300 wh/m.  Slow driving in optimal conditions moves it
> down around 200 wh/m.  I don't think a Leaf does any better than that.

So that's 3.3x - 4 miles/kWh "generally" and 5 miles/kWh "in optimal conditions"?  In optimal conditions (flat road, steady speeds in the 30-40 mph range) I easily get 6+ miles/kWh in my LEAF.

As a side note, the trip to Circuit of The Americas and back (54 miles) in my LEAF on one charge is beginning to be very challenging!

[Willie]

On 10/27/2014 08:54 AM, Anna Nguyen wrote:

I still don't like it on philosophical grounds:  there is absolute no need/reason for any personal transport to weigh 4600+ pounds, let alone one that is supposed environmentally friendly.  There is no getting around the pure physics of moving a 4600+ lbs mass off a dead stop, or flinging it around the turns.  It necessarily takes more energy to accelerate that mass.  To control that mass on the road and around turns, it necessarily takes bigger and stiffer springs (steel, or air in the case of the S) and dampers with higher damping rate, which springs and dampers in turn add weight.  Said stiffer springs in turn results in more road and suspension noises which in turn necessitates more sound proofing, which again, adds weight.  Similarly, to decelerate that mass, it takes bigger brakes; again more weight.  In short, making a vehicle heavier incurs all kinds of penalty.

I would rather have a smaller lighter car.  Though I am apparently not as fixated on it as you.  That 4600 pounds is what it takes to get the range.  Given my druthers, I'd trade even more weight for more range.  You seem to be making the mistake that greater mass directly translates to less efficiency.  That is not true for a vehicle driven at a constant speed.  Yes, tire friction and wheel bearing friction are marginally greater for the heavier car.  But the biggies are wind resistance and wasted friction braking energy.  It seems the Tesla is far better than the Leaf at avoiding friction braking.  When I had my Leaf, I recall that I could not determine when friction braking kicked in.  On the Tesla, there is no friction braking until you touch the brake pedal and you rarely need to touch the brake.  I do recognized that regen is relatively inefficient and is best avoided.

The LEAF is 3300+ pounds and that already grates on me.  The BMW i3, at 2800 lbs give-or-take, is beginning to resemble an environmentally sensible personal transport.  (BTW, the battery pack in the top-of-the-line Tesla S weighs 1300 lbs, almost half the weight of the i3!  That is just madness!)

The LEAF is 3300+ pounds and that already grates on me.  The BMW i3, at 2800 lbs give-or-take, is beginning to resemble an environmentally sensible personal transport.  (BTW, the battery pack in the top-of-the-line Tesla S weighs 1300 lbs, almost half the weight of the i3!  That is just madness!)

Again: you are comparing the weights of cars with 50-100 miles of range to one with 250+ miles.  If 50 miles fits your needs, you have a choice of several semi-lightweight cars.  For 200+ miles, there is only one choice.

> If you can come 30-35 miles south of
> Austin, I offer you a test drive.  You can find me on plugshare.com near
> Dale (between Lockhart and Bastrop). I can charge you while here.

I might take you up on that offer...  :)  A fall drive in the Hill Country...

If we can get matching time windows of sufficient length, I can offer you a trip to the Columbus or San Marcos SuperCharger.  You can't really appreciate a SuperCharger until you've experienced it.

>  I
> generally get 250-300 wh/m.  Slow driving in optimal conditions moves it
> down around 200 wh/m.  I don't think a Leaf does any better than that.

So that's 3.3x - 4 miles/kWh "generally" and 5 miles/kWh "in optimal conditions"?  In optimal conditions (flat road, steady speeds in the 30-40 mph range) I easily get 6+ miles/kWh in my LEAF.

I came to the view/opinion very early in my Leaf period that the Leaf instrumentation is complete and utter crap.  If you're REALLY getting 160-170 wh/m, I'm REALLY impressed.

As a side note, the trip to Circuit of The Americas and back (54 miles) in my LEAF on one charge is beginning to be very challenging!

Nissan should have replaced a large number of Leaf batteries around here.  Do you have hopes of getting yours replaced?  The new owner of my Leaf considers it to have a range of about 50 miles.  And, he's happy with it.  My median trip length is around 100 miles.

[Andy Nguyen]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Willie <wmck...@gmail.com> wrote: 

You seem to be making the mistake that greater mass directly translates to less efficiency.

​  ​

That is not true for a vehicle driven at a constant speed.

​That's why I did not mention aerodynamics, rolling resistance, ​etc.  At speed, the majority of energy is expended pushing the shape through the atmosphere: drag goes up with square of speed;  weight plays a much more minor role.  Instead, I did point out that it takes more energy to move a larger mass off a dead stop.

It's also true that higher mass == more kinetic energy, but you can only charge a battery so quickly.  The energy needed to accelerate to speed will never equal the energy regained on deceleration.

It seems the Tesla is far better than the Leaf at avoiding friction braking.  When I had my Leaf, I recall that I could not determine when friction braking kicked in.  On the Tesla, there is no friction braking until you touch the brake pedal and you rarely need to touch the brake.

​Same with the i3: I could drive it using just on​e pedal.  And it's 1800 lbs lighter than the Tesla S!  Yes, I'm fixated on weight!  For me, when the energy capacity is limited, the answer is not to add more of it and incurring many penalties doing so.  The answer is to make much more efficient use of what I have.  I feel that even the i3 is still on the wrong side of the equation by two seats:  I would think 95% of the time I'm the only occupant and I hardly ever need to carry more than two.

 

Again: you are comparing the weights of cars with 50-100 miles of range to one with 250+ miles.  If 50 miles fits your needs, you have a choice of several semi-lightweight cars.  For 200+ miles, there is only one choice.

​That is true.​

 

[mckemie]

Have all Austin Leaf owners just faded away?

I never developed much of an interest in i3s.  I did develop quite an interest in imievs and eventually bought two.  Both "new" but long stocked by dealers (in Plano and Houston) and offered at VERY attractive prices.  With about 10k miles on each of them, it seems they will be everything that the Leaf was not.  No indication of ANY battery degradation.  The transporting from Plano and Houston were interesting projects.  Pull while regening with a Tesla for about 30 miles, then driving the imievs about 50 miles.  Repeat.

I really regret that the imiev has been orphaned; the Leaf is a better orphan candidate.

[Don Shin]

Re: the inactivity of this list- perhaps it is a sign that the Leaf is not as remarkable a car as it used to be, now that we have a much larger selection of EVs to choose from? Or a sign that we are all used to living with our LEAFs and don’t need the solidarity and support we needed in the early days?

DEO...@gmail.com : this is the only Austin-centric Leaf mailing list I know of- but it hasn’t been particularly active in a while...

Don

Sent from my iPhone

[Mike Butterfield]

Why am I no longer interested in leaf?

I am an early adopter with my 2011, which now sits in my driveway with 5 out of 12 bars, and a range of about 40 miles. I do not want to drop 6K on a new battery for a car that is now worth about $3K (if I can even find a buyer).

On the positive side, you can pick up a used leaf dirt cheap.

[Anna Nguyen]

My 2011's battery was replaced about three years ago at 35946 miles with a "lizard" battery.  Three years later, now at 64591 miles, it still has all of its 12 bars and only slightly diminished range.  It appears that Nissan got much better with heat/battery management in this battery.

I can see how people can get caught not being able to benefit from the battery warranty.  I wonder how much more it would have costed Nissan to replace *all* 2011 batteries versus having a warranty under which some would not be covered.

This list has been quiet probably because the LEAF is now just a car, as opposed to being the shiny new bleeding-edge avant-garde more-progressive-than-thou badge that it maybe was at one time.  To me, that's a good sign.  The sooner EVs become "just another car" the better.

--

Anna

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AustinLeaf" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to austinleaf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.