Official Thread [Official] MINI Electric Concept

[Matski]

Can I just expand on this and I hesitate cause I know I sound like an all knowing dbag - and I don't mean to. So it is with all the humility I say this - it makes my head spin how much the legacy car industry is getting these broad strokes wrong. 5 years ago, sure so much was unknown. Now you have all the data you need. And there is a big apple pie in the...

There needs to be sufficient market demand and sufficient resource supply to do it profitably and sustainably for starters. I think you just need to accept that at least one of those elements doesn't stack up at the moment.

 

[Sunny]

There needs to be sufficient market demand and sufficient resource supply to do it profitably and sustainably for starters

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about clearly, and don't want to assume things, so help me understand.

When you say "sufficient market demand", demand for what? And what is the "sufficient" demand?
When you say "sufficient resource supply", what resource are you talking about? And what is the "sufficient" quantity? and when will it be sufficient?
When you say "do it profitably" And what is "it"?

 

[TheNewBATMAN]

Manufacturing Mini E for your EV debut is like going to the candy s...

Agreed. I remember going to my first ever candy store. It was so fun, buying my first ever candy store.

 

[Matski]

When you say "sufficient market demand", demand for what? And what is the "sufficient" demand?

BEV's, and by sufficient, I mean large enough to warrant the net initial cost.

When you say "sufficient resource supply", what resource are you talking about? And what is the "sufficient" quantity? and when will it be sufficient?

By resource I mean money, knowledge, capability, capacity, materials, sub-assemblies. Don't wish to sound facetious but sufficient simply means enough.. for example, Audi don't have sufficient battery supply to meet their planned demand for the e-tron.

When you say "do it profitably" And what is "it"?

Not make significantly less money than doing what they're already doing. "It", is research, design, develop, tool-up for, provide capacity for, manufacture, distribute, market, sell, service and support a new range of goldilocks BEV's.

Note, I'm not making a case either way on this one... simply pointing out some key factors that may justify a decision one way or the other. If they're not doing something obvious, it's most likely for a reason, and that reason is almost surely profitability.

Things will evolve I'm sure, but I doubt very much they will evolve at a pace that will satiate Internet EV fans.

 

[Sunny]

BEV's, and by sufficient, I mean large enough to warrant the net initial cost.

But this Mini is a BEV! One aimed at a smaller niche market with way less demand? And one same as i3. If the demand for BEVs is not sufficient, why do these niche one's that will have even lesser demand? All this while mainstream BEV is selling 3x as much as a 3 series and 30x times as much as i3 in US. It takes some fantastic logical gymnastics to continue developing/manufacturing/marketing/selling these niche BEVs while maintaining there is not enough demand for BEVs.

By resource I mean money, knowledge, capability, capacity, materials, sub-assemblies. Don't wish to sound facetious but sufficient simply means enough.. for example, Audi don't have sufficient battery supply to meet their planned demand for the e-tron.

If they really lack all these resources like you say they do, the resource they really lack is good leadership.

 

[Centurion]

Small BEVs will succeed when they are cheap as a fiesta or vw polo and there are high speed charging stations everywhere.

 

[EnI]

Small BEVs will succeed when they are cheap as a fiesta or vw polo and there are high speed charging stations everywhere.

Exactly. More than a range itself the availability of high-speed charging network is crucial. Smaller batteries an be recharged faster. And for daily intracity driving you don't need 200+mi range. For longer range you can opt for bigger car or a model variant with better range.

It's insane to expect every single BEV (of every size & shape) having 400+mi range batteries installed.

And again: supply of automotive batteries is still sparse. And so is the the supply of raw materials (lithium, cobalt etc) - and the supply chain of these materials is controlled by state-owned Chinese companies.

Also, batteries are still quite expensive - so cheap(er) BEVS with long range are made with a loss! That's why carmakers are limiting the production & availability of such cars. Nobody is stupid enough to sell tons of such cars at a huge loss. They do calculations: what's less damaging - selling loss-making BEVs or paying emission fines. Until batteries are cheap enough to be offered at affordable prices & with a profit for a carmaker, do not expect mass supply of BEVs by any carmaker.

And the charging grid is still not developed everywhere to a degree to cope with mass usage of BEVs.

It's a gradual process. It takes time. At least 2 automotive generations: 12-15 years. And now we are somewhere in the middle of that period. Expect more mature BEV market around 2025. We are getting there.

But all the hysteria that the change has to be made overnight is childish & immature. Lacking any insight in the industry. Also all the transition has to be made with caution & with care, not to disrupt the chains too quickly - causing disruption in the labour market, putting too many people out of the jobs too quickly. There's a social component to that change / transition as well. Yes, revolutionary disruption sounds ok when you focus on positive aspects of the revolution only, and labelling all the negative aspects as "necessary collateral damage" - which IMO is extremely ignorant, arrogant & dangerous. Car industry is not mobile phone industry. Or photo film industry. Carmakers are not Nokia, Ericsson or Kodak.

When it comes to MINI SE: as said many times ... BMW are developing it mainly for its own (and others) intracity car-sharing service. Where cars are charged constantly. So the range is not that important. And MINI still has huge brand appeal. It's much more cool to drive a MINI than Renault Zoe, or Opel Corsa BEV or Hyundai Kona etc.

 

[Sunny]

It's insane to expect every single BEV (of every size & shape) having 400+mi range batteries installed.

Ha, the irony of all the legacy guys who dismissed EVs for years for not having enough range, now crying about too much range!!

Eni, 2 years ago - "EVs, bah, they can't go beyond 200 miles. It is a joke!"
Eni today - "WTF, you want EV's to go 400 miles, go die!!"

so cheap(er) BEVS with long range are made with a loss!

Which one(s) and how much loss? Be specific please.

Carmakers are not Nokia, Ericsson or Kodak

Can't argue with that. I don't think any of those 3 spend billions lobbying governments to continue to let them pollute the air, then cheating when that stopped working and then lying when caught cheating.

BMW are developing it mainly for its own (and others) intracity car-sharing service

Yes, because car/ride sharing market is such a cake walk and BMW is going to kill it? This is like a sprinter saying, I don't want to run 800m, too long, so I am going to go compete in ironman triathlon instead.

Do what you guys do well, well. Make cars. Make a good electric car. A good one. That is good, the best. Like BMW used to when they made just 3 cars - a 3 series, a 5 series and a 7 series and at least 2 of the 3 was the very best you could buy at any price. Instead of all wasting time/effort/opportunity on these "me too" enterprises just to appear hip/get some press but will come to naught.

 

[Matski]

It takes some fantastic logical gymnastics to continue developing/manufacturing/marketing/selling these niche BEVs while maintaining there is not enough demand for BEVs.

Quite, but it's likely what you label as gymnastics is actually highly complex cold, hard profit orientated facts. No doubt BMW are considering opportunities globally and I suspect the decision to pursue EV Mini's is based in part on the situation in China, and the tie up with GWM, which helps makes sense of the investment.

Think of it like this, if BMW could make more money by selling long range electric 3-ers than they do internal combustion powered ones, right now, what assumptions would you have to make to explain why they don't sell them? I'm assuming they don't because it's not as profitable at this point in time - which I believe is reasonable, though I fully acknowledge I could be wrong.

To reiterate, value of demand, cost of supply, profitability... even E-Loon Musk gets this (to a point) hence the $35,000 Model III took a while to actually arrive, with him admitting publically that it would have killed the company to deliver it from the outset. Its the same at the other auto manufacturers, except their idea of profitability is dictated by what they're already achieving, which isn't a benchmark Tesla have to worry about yet.

 

[SCOTT27]

I agree that smaller BEVs is where everyone needs to focus. It's the largest area for growth. However smaller BEVs are not particularly profitable at this moment in time. Therefore that is why the focus is mainly on the upper segments and SUV class.
MINI although still expensive could begin the trend for premium mini-BEVs. I think Honda has missed an opportunity with the Honda-e. It's gone from a city car to something that will cost the same or as nearly as an i3.

 

[dalab]

I think Honda has missed an opportunity with the Honda-e. It's gone from a city car to something that will cost the same or as nearly as an i3.

It was also the original idea of the i3 "Megacity" vehicle, remember that it was called, maybe today with the increase in sales that shows thanks to the maturity of the market, the i3 and the Honda do well

 

[Sunny]

Think of it like this, ifBMW could make more money by selling long range electric 3-ers than they dointernal combustion powered ones, right now, what assumptions would you have to make to explain why they don't sell them? I'm assuming they don't because it's not as profitable at this point in time - which I believe is reasonable, though I fully acknowledge I could be wrong.

That is a very naive view of corporations work - of rational people working towards the same goal looking at very black and white data and making the obvious rational call. Reality is far from it. Obviously, there are risks and unknowns involved in any new venture, especially one that bears fruits much down the line. And add the human element - an exec's aversion to risking failure and losing his contract renewal, a manager's fear of losing his annual bonus, an engineer's deep conviction what he knows is the best, a worker's fear of being outside the comfort zone. All these biases taint every decision at every level. Add to that the corporate politics, the turf wars, the fear of rocking the boat, the corporate myopia of quarterly results... why most giant corporations with out strong leadership become stale and stop to innovate and are happy making small incremental updates - polishing the same turd over and over. Until threatened by a disruption and then they run around like a headless chicken doing random "me too" things without really being able to let go of the past either. What EVs are the future? yes will will have 20 of them (of course the guy responsible for ICE managed to stick one in half of them). Ride sharing app - oh, we have that too - how about two of them!

 

[Matski]

That is a very naive view of corporations work - of rational people working towards the same goal looking at very black and white data and making the obvious rational call. Reality is far from it. Obviously, there are risks and unknowns involved in any new venture, especially one that bears fruits much down the line. And add the human element - an exec's...

So the assumptions you are making are that fear of personal economic loss overwhelm the direction of the company, and that is prevalant at every level. You're assuming that the data they have does not point in a direction conclusively enough that it's a safe decision for managers at any level, and you're assuming that the supervisory board and the board of management are complicit in this. You're also accepting that if this culture truly exists, that its demonstrably the more profitable way of doing things... And all of this - by extension - counter to data you believe exists, that making a core, mainstream, BMW BEV product is better for the company than following their existing electrification strategy.

You suggest my argument is based on logical gymnastics and that I'm naive... But you are making significantly more unsupported logical leaps than I am... And I'm not even saying that it won't come to pass, it may well, but you appear to believe it can be done profitably right now and I'm curious as to why, given that nobody is doing it currently, and those that ARE working towards it have a timescale that is somewhat more realistic than impatient EV bloggers, which is the kind of diatribe that I'm sorry to say it seems like you want to buy in to.

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

I believe that electric cars are artificially postponed because no one in the current auto business has interest in this. For the oil companies like Shell, BP Exon Mobil, Total this is just lost market with all its consequences. For all the supplier this means lost orders because el cars are made with much less parts. Car manufactures would have to cut 1/3 of their workforce. the old suppliers like Getrag, Mahle and etc have to be replaced with such as ABB, Siemens, Curtis, Zapi etc. Without changing the system from the bottom to the top the el cars will not be profitable to this industry. Tesla is an amateur company, that is not chained by all this burdening status quo and it achieves to produces a great product that beats the product that has been improved by professionals for the last 133 years. If executed correctly by a company with all the needed resources the el vehicle would smash the ICE one on all fronts. But no one (from this chain) has interest in this.
So it's not a matter of profitability but a matter of a total change that will be resisted as long as possible.

 

[Matski]

So it's not a matter of profitability but a matter of a total change that will be resisted as long as possible.

Why can't I already buy a $35,000 Tesla Model III then?

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

Why can't I already buy a $35,000 Tesla Model III then?

Because TESLA is a shitty company but this does not change the superiority of the EVs.

 

[Matski]

Because TESLA is a shitty company but this does not change the superiority of the EVs.

Fine. Read my posts, I'm not arguing their level of superiority or inferiority, I'm arguing that their economic viabilty is the reason why manufacturers aren't yet creating butterzone products in the mass market.

 

[SCOTT27]

The MINI looked really nimble today on the stage.

 

[Sunny]

But you are making significantly more unsupported logical leaps than I am...

Except I am not making them up. These patterns I listed are not some figment of my imagination. I didn't come up with it. They are well studied, researched phenomena that is well documented by economists. There are many published work on the same, the most famous one being "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton M. Christensen. You should read it. This is not a new or rare thing either - most established companies fail to react in time technological disruption. It is the rule rather than the exception. It doesn't take any imagination or logical leaps to see the same happening at BMW/other legacy manufacturers

but you appear to believe it can be done profitably right now

"now" in relation to when? If you think I am claiming you can start a venture and turn profit on day 1 or even year 1 you are grossly misstating. Like any venture, it takes investment, time and effort before your can reap the benefits. Having done that, yes they could be selling EV profitably "now".

and I'm curious as to why, given that nobody is doing it currently,

Who says nobody is doing it? Tesla is selling their cars at a profit. The gross margin on the Model 3 is ~20+% on average price of $55000. Believe it is even higher for Model S/X. It is a different matter the company chose to invest that (and more) back into growing it's business vs paying dividend.
Link in case it works - Here’s How Tesla Can Keep Model 3 Profit Margins Up

Why can't I already buy a $35,000Tesla Model III then?

In US, you can buy a $40,000 ($36,250 after tax rebate) model 3 with 240 mile EPA range today. I can't buy a BMW EV with 200 mile range for any amount. So not sure what your point is. No one is criticizing BMW for not selling a $35000 EV, they are not even selling one with decent range for even $70000.

 

[EnI]

BMW (and any other carmaker) won't go after Tesla seriously until the major markets around the globe are ripe & ready. They still aren't. The market has to be sustainable & working WITHOUT the government subsidies & credits. Otherwise it's too risky. Customers are not ready to pay premiums for BEVs - they only go after them when subsidies & credits are available, to make cars affordable for mass markets. Niche top-end markets are not as problematic. But the point of BEVs is to be mass-available.

But eventually everybody is getting there. The markets are ripening. The supply chains are being established and growing to keep up with demand (it can't be done overnight though! It takes time to establish & open a mine, a smelting facility etc). NOBODY - even Tesla - has established a long-term supply chain for batteries / battery cell rare earths materials. Establishing a supply chain for a model generation (6-10 years) is not enough and it's too risky. Expect mass production of BEVs when supply chains will be properly established.

Mind the annual production of passenger automobiles is around 70 million units. Add 20 million commercial vehicles per year and you get 90 million automobiles per year! That's a lot of batteries, lot of electricity, lot of charging stations, lot of a lot of metals, lot of rare earths ...

Everybody expecting an "overnight" change (talking about years here) is naive, ignorant & lacking any proper insight on the industry. Comparing automotive industry to consumer electronics (incl computers, TVs, mobile phones, Hi-Fi systems, cameras etc) industry is totally off. Apples and oranges. Automotive industry is much more rigid, much more complex, with very complex supply chains etc. And long R&D and life cycle. While consumer electronics gets new generation practically every year.

Taking Tesla - which is still a start up company from business point of view - as an example what all the other carmakers should have done (and in such short time) is not right. Legacy carmakers have their plans & paths, and will get there. Slowly. What can disrupt them more than one start up company is a brigade of start-up companies pushing up BEV supply. But that's not happening (perhaps a bit in China but even there the BEV start-up-mania is cooling down). What's more disruptive are the strict emission regulations (incl emission-free urban zones), and political pledges to carbon-neutral societies by 20xx - incl. banning registration / sales of new ICE-only passenger vehicles by 20xx.

Therefore legacy carmakers are speeding up, and a bidding war for long-term supplies have begun among legacy carmakers. Therefore all the collaborations lately. To speed up things - especially on the purchasing & production sides. And when purchasing & production are aligned, then R&D (technical solutions) has to be too.

BMW are much more worried what VAG, Daimler, Toyota, GM, Ford, Renault-Nissan, FCA, PSA are doing than what Tesla is doing. And what governments / legislators are doing around the globe.

Sure Tesla is a pioneer. With superb BEV products. Taking advantage of emerging BEV markets. But ripe BEV markets will be completely different animal. Many will catch up very quickly. And the cards will be shuffled, tables turned. I'm not saying Tesla will evaporate but it will have much harder time than today. They better consolidate their finances asap. As said many times: Tesla only has 1 car generation of advantage left. They'll have to innovate further to keep that advantage. And introduce new tech, solutions, services & content first. I hope they make it.It would be good for the consumers.

Mind BEV will only be a vessel for other stuff in the very near future - most probably bundled into 360 Deg products (all the tech incl Level x AD, all the services incl mobile internet, banking, car sharing, shopping etc etc, all the content incl business, entertainment, news, AI assistants, smart things etc etc). And nobody really knows how will that affect 100 million units automobile making industry. New 360 Deg product packages will have to be created & sold, leased etc. There will be lots of interindustry collaborations, even mergers & acquisitions. We will be witnessing a rise of corporate conglomerate chimeras around the globe. With trillions USD of revenues per year. A brave new (corporate) world. And when big corporations are too big to fail then governments & politicians are locked into catering to those corporations. Corporatism will finally prevail. I hope not in any of non-liberal authoritarian form. But I guess that's just a wishful thinking.

The biggest danger is the fact that all those corporations will have nothing but good intentions. But as we all know a path to hell is usually paved by good intentions, isn't it? Now I'm starting to feel depressed (and oppressed), LOL.