BMW chief attacks petrol and diesel car ban amid chaotic rush to electric vehicles

BMW chief attacks petrol and diesel car ban amid chaotic rush to electric vehicles

The chief said he wanted drivers to spend money with the brand for a vehicle that suits them

www.gbnews.com

And the BMW chief says:

“We want people to spend a lot of money on our products because they say ‘It’s the best product for me’. Because they want it and not because they have to”

Come on, how many really want to spend lot of money just because it is the best product - according to him.

"BMW i4 IAA 2021 1X7A0308" by Alexander Migl is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

 

[Js1977]

Come on, how many really want to spend lot of money just because it is the best product - according to him.

It's each to their own I suppose. I mean, what' best for me might not necessarily bode well for someone else and vice versa.

Putting all the green stuff aside and all that, We are at Euro 6 going on to euro 7.

I used to like my diesels (for the grunt) and my petrols before that but now they have way to much stuff added and bolted to go wrong that the only purpose is to reduce emissions, specially for those doing average to low mileage.

IMHO, Its inevitable that petrol and diesel will die even if its a slow death.

 

[fhteagle]

It wouldn't be a "chaotic rush" (which I don't agree with that characterization at all) if they would have started taking EVs seriously in the '90s. I have zero sympathy for OEMs that are tragically behind Tesla, China, etc in this game.

The air quality benefits are too good to sacrifice for any dynasty of corporate profits.

 

[spdpsba]

It wouldn't be a "chaotic rush" (which I don't agree with that characterization at all) if they would have started taking EVs seriously in the '90s. I have zero sympathy for OEMs that are tragically behind Tesla, China, etc in this game.

The air quality benefits are too good to sacrifice for any dynasty of corporate profits.

They know they lost the game when they tried to do i3 and i8. Unfortunately Model S came out in 2012 just before i3 and BMW had no way of changing their design & battery tech as their concept was out on 2011. They thought they cracked the EV market with the i3 & range extender and i8 as the ‘supercar’ category to show off.

 

[phxazcraig]

BMW chief attacks petrol and diesel car ban amid chaotic rush to electric vehicles

The chief said he wanted drivers to spend money with the brand for a vehicle that suits them

www.gbnews.com

And the BMW chief says:

“We want people to spend a lot of money on our products because they say ‘It’s the best product for me’. Because they want it and not because they have to”

Come on, how many really want to spend lot of money just because it is the best product - according to him.

View attachment 990452
"BMW i4 IAA 2021 1X7A0308" by Alexander Migl is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

Yeah, like seat belts, emission controls, slower-filling unleaded gas tank openings, 85 mph speedometers, There are plenty of government requirements that most consumers never wanted, but we've gotten used to most of them.

 

[Foucault]

The business world is littered with examples of companies that failed to adapt to market changes such as Nokia and RIM (Blackberry) being slow to the threat of the iPhone and android phones or Blockbuster having the chance to buy Netflix but the boss thinking streaming would never take off as people wanted to browse a physical store. BMW had the chance to be a market leader in EVs but like Nokia and RIM they are making so much on existing products it’s difficult to switch. Having said that there designs are a mess and they’ve gone down the route of using the same platform for both ICE and EV which ultimately means compromises for both (not that a dedicated EV platform is a guarantee of success - see the Mercedes EQS for a surprisingly bad car).

To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if some major car manufacturers go under in the next few years as they fail to adapt. Prime candidate must be Toyota who make about $2bn a quarter but are burning cash and about $200bn in debt. It won’t take much of a switch to EVs to wipe out their profits and it isn’t like they’ve got a good EV offering - it always seems to be around solid state batteries coming in the next couple of years (they’ve been saying that since 2017).

 

[E90alex]

I think he’s saying that governments should let ICE sales naturally fall off and end instead of a hard ban at a set time. Make the EVs more compelling and desirable and people will naturally chose EV over ICE. This includes charging infrastructure both fast and slow to make EV ownership less of a hassle than ICE ownership.

2030 ban was way too ambitious. That’s only a bit shy of 6 years away. Even 2035 is a bit ambitious considering EV sales are still only a small fraction of market share currently.

Of course governments can implement certain policies to help push faster EV adoption (see Norway). Generally people like to feel like they are making the best decision for themselves instead of having zero choice in the matter.

 

[qwickshot]

The ICE ban was never 2030 in the U.K. anyway, you could still buy a PHEV up until 2035 under the original ‘2030’ timeline.

A PHEV is still an ICE car and there was no requirement to charge them ever….

 

[Js1977]

Generally people like to feel like they are making the best decision for themselves instead of having zero choice in the matter.

In a nutshell...

 

[yessuz]

I for that matter do not think 2030 deadline is bad.
look at the current number of EV and number of new charging places and compare it with 2 years ago... and you still have 6 years in front of you.

and this affect completely new vehhicle sales anyway, which significant portion is fleet vehicles, of which, due to taxation, significant portion is EVs already

 

[Whyone]

BMW chief attacks petrol and diesel car ban amid chaotic rush to electric vehicles

The chief said he wanted drivers to spend money with the brand for a vehicle that suits them

www.gbnews.com

And the BMW chief says:

“We want people to spend a lot of money on our products because they say ‘It’s the best product for me’. Because they want it and not because they have to”

Come on, how many really want to spend lot of money just because it is the best product - according to him.

View attachment 990452
"BMW i4 IAA 2021 1X7A0308" by Alexander Migl is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

I'm struggling to see your problem with his statement....he wants people to buy BMW's because they think it's the best car for them.

A perfectly reasonable objective for someone running a car manufacturer I'd have thought?

Personal priorities and perceptions are of course just that - individual and subjective.

 

[spdpsba]

I'm struggling to see your problem with his statement....he wants people to buy BMW's because they think it's the best car for them.

A perfectly reasonable objective for someone running a car manufacturer I'd have thought?

Personal priorities and perceptions are of course just that - individual and subjective.

Just swap BMW chief for Elon and I can see how your priorities and perceptions change suddenly.

 

[spdpsba]

think he’s saying that governments should let ICE sales naturally fall off and end instead of a hard ban at a set time. Make the EVs more compelling and desirable and people will naturally chose EV over ICE.

Which BMW will never do.

He wants the market or his industry to decide what people want though he can’t say that! - You provide BMW 2 series with 5 seater, 7 seater and 3 series with Coupe, GC, four door, two doors, convertible and god knows what else is there and then people can chose only what is offered. It is like housing market - the developers decide what to offer depending on what brings money to their coffers not what people want as a home.

 

[GlynG]

I disagree with the forced phasing out of ICE vehicles, deadlines are simply setting up for failure. I also disagree with the threats and penalties for not obeying whatever our politicians decide is good for us - re ULEZ zones. I fail to see how £12.50 per day and a predicted revenue of £200 million in fines per year is going to improve those who are suffering from the effects of air pollution unless that 200 million will be used to provide treatment privately for the individuals affected - but we know they they will pocket the cash and add those affected to the 8 million waiting for treatment within our absolutely unfit for purpose NHS.

The change to an alternative fuel vehicle is better driven by desire to purchase and let the demand dictate the speed of change.
I believe people are driven by a range of factors to move from one fuel to another, be that petrol, diesel or indeed hybrid, BEV, each type of fuel system has advantages and disadvantages and only the individuals requirements will determine what is right for them.

Personally, BEV is right for me right now, I want to retain a choice though, simply the thought that some wealthy and privileged posh boy or girl gets to decide what I can have infuriates me especially when i don't believe the "facts" presented by those in power because I know statistics are taken out of context in order to support their assertions.

Everyone flying to a climate change convention to discuss how to save the planet is a farce, have they never heard of conference calls with video links? However, 3 weeks in some exotic place in a 7 star hotel is the real star attraction whilst pretending to be working hard for us all, and of course their advisers - and their team have to attend too - and their team is usually their family members. nice work if you can get it.

I believe in a free market, manufacturers will survive or go into administration based on what they produce and what the public want to buy.

 

[Jason71]

I disagree with the forced phasing out of ICE vehicles, deadlines are simply setting up for failure. I also disagree with the threats and penalties for not obeying whatever our politicians decide is good for us - re ULEZ zones. I fail to see how £12.50 per day and a predicted revenue of £200 million in fines per year is going to improve those who are suffering from the effects of air pollution unless that 200 million will be used to provide treatment privately for the individuals affected - but we know they they will pocket the cash and add those affected to the 8 million waiting for treatment within our absolutely unfit for purpose NHS.

You can argue for and against the concept, I don't really want to get into that debate, But the concept is incredibly simple surely you can see that? Persuade people to get less polluting cars by making it cheaper to upgrade than to pay the charge and stick with what they have. Judging by the huge number of EV's and Hybrids you see in London I assume it is working though the EV part might have more to do with the congestion charge exemption which I think runs out soon.
As for what you do with the profits plowing them into efficient clean public transport for those who cannot afford a clean car would make most sense to me. but I don't live anywhere near a ULEZ zone so I have never looked into it

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Which BMW will never do.

He wants the market or his industry to decide what people want though he can’t say that! - You provide BMW 2 series with 5 seater, 7 seater and 3 series with Coupe, GC, four door, two doors, convertible and god knows what else is there and then people can chose only what is offered. It is like housing market - the developers decide what to offer depending on what brings money to their coffers not what people want as a home.

So it's wrong for people to buy the car they want because of their values as opposed to the nanny state telling them they need to buy something different? And it's wrong to give people choice, factory customisation and individuality as opposed to one size fits all.

Yet tomorrow you'll be saying Tesla should be allowed to turn FSD on in the UK because we should have freedom and not let the nanny state cripple it with regulations.

I can't help thinking you tried to buy a BMW once and they refused to sell one to you as your hatred for the brand is becoming pathalogical

 

[spdpsba]

So it's wrong for people to buy the car they want because of their values as opposed to the nanny state telling them they need to buy something different? And it's wrong to give people choice, factory customisation and individuality as opposed to one size fits all.

Yet tomorrow you'll be saying Tesla should be allowed to turn FSD on in the UK because we should have freedom and not let the nanny state cripple it with regulations.

You contradict yourself by these statements. I am just saying the industry wants to decide what people want, BMW chief can’t say that so he is just manipulating saying people want to spend on our products so we are giving them that.

I don’t think you can see this beyond your own biases, so there is no point answering these questions rationally and ending up closing this thread. And your last sentence deserves some apology as it was just a below the belt personal attack.

 

[Mrklaw]

I think he’s saying that governments should let ICE sales naturally fall off and end instead of a hard ban at a set time. Make the EVs more compelling and desirable and people will naturally chose EV over ICE. This includes charging infrastructure both fast and slow to make EV ownership less of a hassle than ICE ownership.

2030 ban was way too ambitious. That’s only a bit shy of 6 years away. Even 2035 is a bit ambitious considering EV sales are still only a small fraction of market share currently.

Of course governments can implement certain policies to help push faster EV adoption (see Norway). Generally people like to feel like they are making the best decision for themselves instead of having zero choice in the matter.

except by letting ICE sales ‘naturally’ fall off and end you’re relying on manufacturers increasing investment in EVs and slowing sales of ICE. If you just leave it to the market there is no guarantee new sales will stop which is why you need legislation

 

[Mrklaw]

So it's wrong for people to buy the car they want because of their values as opposed to the nanny state telling them they need to buy something different? And it's wrong to give people choice, factory customisation and individuality as opposed to one size fits all.

Yet tomorrow you'll be saying Tesla should be allowed to turn FSD on in the UK because we should have freedom and not let the nanny state cripple it with regulations.

I can't help thinking you tried to buy a BMW once and they refused to sell one to you as your hatred for the brand is becoming pathalogical

its called society. Everywhere you turn the ‘nanny’ state restricts what you can and can’t do, in an attempt to find a balance that works for most people.

speed limits on motorways; drink drive limits; lower speed limits in built up areas; heck traffic lights could be argued as reducing your choice to drive where and how you like. All designed reduce injuries and expensive bills from hospitals/police/etc

Now EVs are considered the best way to try and decarbonise personal transportation. Maybe sythetic fuels have a place eventually, but right now much like hydrogen they’re just a smokescreen from fossil fuels which is where most will come from. Hydrogen has big enough boots to fill by decarbonising ammonia and other industrial processes. Synthetic fuels feels like long tail stuff when the new cars are already electrified and we have spare capacity to produce efuel, to help with either classic/hypercars for the rich, or to keep older ICE cars on the road for the poor (guess which it’ll be).

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

its called society. Everywhere you turn the ‘nanny’ state restricts what you can and can’t do, in an attempt to find a balance that works for most people.

I get that completely. There is however sometimes an irrationality about government and its legislation v market forces. I'm more an advocate of goverment using carrots as much as sticks to make people change. Want to get people off ICE, gradually increase VED to the point where it's not viable for many over the next 10 years rather than the current approach where after 5 years the premium rate for luxury cars drops off.

Take a wholesale look at Euro 5.6 and7 and what was all that about if you're scrapping EVs

Review infrastructure support to make EV long distance driving more feasible, scrap VAT for the next 5 years on public chargers, and give 125% capital allowances (if they don;t already qualify) to peg electricity prices say 30% below that of the equivalent petrol or diesel costs on a site by site basis. So if a service statin sell petrol at £8 a gallon that does a typical 40 miles, or 20p a mile, then electricity needs to be no more than 3 miles per kwh * 20p * 70% = 42p kwh. Want to charge more for electricity, you charge more for petrol and diesel.

Look to California and make brands have an increasing heavy EV mix in their sales. Rather than an outright ban in 5 years, make it 50% by volume of sales by brand need to be pure EV, If the economics require it manufacturers will discount EVs to be able to sell ICE or to ensure the balance is right. Aston Martin had the Cygnet thing to bring their average emissions down.

Look at manufacturers production emissions. Cars containing a high propotion of recycled materials and built in a carbon neutral factory (the i3 was one of the first)

Blunt bans don't really help anyone especially if you subsequently move the goal posts which has been happening, and they don't help the aging market where people will potentially run older ICE cars well beyond their sell by date and producing worse emissions.

But the notion that a company that makes something like 20 different product variations is trying to control choice is somewhat laughable compared to Tesla making only 2 RHD variants.