I still think that's fine as a safety feature, but not as something to be relied upon for normal driving. Call me fuddy duddy, but there is no substitute for paying attention. One day a sensor will fail, or the computer will burp, and you'll rear end someone because the car is supposed to do it all for you. I would be very uncomfortable abdicating control to a computer that way. But if it's a backup to protect me when I do something wrong, that's okay.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I still think that's fine as a safety feature, but not as something to be relied upon for normal driving. Call me fuddy duddy, but there is no substitute for paying attention. One day a sensor will fail, or the computer will burp, and you'll rear end someone because the car is supposed to do it all for you. I would be very uncomfortable abdicating control to a computer that way. But if it's a backup to protect me when I do something wrong, that's okay.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Nearly 100 people die in the US every day in a car accident. Over 1000 are injured.
Data indicate those numbers would go down considerably, not up, if every car on the road had active safety systems - even if people relied on them too much or when they shouldn't. Reason why? Because people are slower to react and more easily distracted than equipment like this tends to fail, by an order of 10000 to 1.
Um, that assumes the software actually works.
There were multiple reports in the early days of ABS braking systems of really cool S-shaped curves left on the ground by ABS braking. And if you really knew how to brake (threshold braking), manual braking was better than ABS braking for quite a while. SCCA racers on the internet tried and reported back.
It's going to take a while to work the bugs out of the software. I'm not planning on being one of the early adopters, myself.
There were multiple reports in the early days of ABS braking systems of really cool S-shaped curves left on the ground by ABS braking. And if you really knew how to brake (threshold braking), manual braking was better than ABS braking for quite a while. SCCA racers on the internet tried and reported back.
It's going to take a while to work the bugs out of the software. I'm not planning on being one of the early adopters, myself.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
These driver assist technologies (blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, pedestrian detection, and collision autobrake) aren't new. They've been around for many years now on other makes (Volvo, Mercedes, Audi).
The data are quite clear - they work:
Crash Prevention Systems In Vehicles Improving Rapidly, IIHS Finds
Also, starting in 2015 you won't be able to get the top IIHS rating anymore without them:
Better autobrake helps more models earn top ratings for front crash prevention
"The Institute will require an advanced or better rating for front crash prevention as one of the criteria needed to win a 2015 TOP SAFETY PICK+ award."
The software's getting better but I would still wait a few years.
Look at that IIHS article. The Toyota software utterly failed IIHS's tests last year and this year did very well. BMW's is "much improved" over last year. Overall, there is a significant improvement across the board from last year to this year.
That article tells me three things.
1) The software is indeed getting better.
2) A lot of the software was pretty bad to begin with given last year's results.
3) This was the second year of testing.
#3 means the software engineers had a year to work and they knew exactly how their software was going to be tested. Good news is that a lot of the software did much better the second time tested.
So my conclusion as a software engineer with decades of experience working on complex systems software is that they've still got a lot of major bugs they need to find and fix.
The IIHS test scenarios helped them find and fix a number of major issues. They continue to get more real-world data which also helps them find and fix problems. But given the large improvement in the software from last year to this year, I'm confident that right now, there are still major issues to be found and fixed in most if not all the software out there.
That said, there are drivers out there right now who could and should use this software. I would certainly get this option for my mother-in-law and my father (both over 70 with somewhat scary driving). But there are also quite a few drivers that are much better than the software.
This same progression happened with ABS software, btw. It got better over time as they worked the bugs out of the software, got more powerful computers and better sensors. I was probably better at braking than ABS for years. Now I just slam the brake pedal to the floor and let ABS handle it.
I expect the driver assist software to follow the same progression. It's a hard set of problems they're trying to solve.
Look at that IIHS article. The Toyota software utterly failed IIHS's tests last year and this year did very well. BMW's is "much improved" over last year. Overall, there is a significant improvement across the board from last year to this year.
That article tells me three things.
1) The software is indeed getting better.
2) A lot of the software was pretty bad to begin with given last year's results.
3) This was the second year of testing.
#3 means the software engineers had a year to work and they knew exactly how their software was going to be tested. Good news is that a lot of the software did much better the second time tested.
So my conclusion as a software engineer with decades of experience working on complex systems software is that they've still got a lot of major bugs they need to find and fix.
The IIHS test scenarios helped them find and fix a number of major issues. They continue to get more real-world data which also helps them find and fix problems. But given the large improvement in the software from last year to this year, I'm confident that right now, there are still major issues to be found and fixed in most if not all the software out there.
That said, there are drivers out there right now who could and should use this software. I would certainly get this option for my mother-in-law and my father (both over 70 with somewhat scary driving). But there are also quite a few drivers that are much better than the software.
This same progression happened with ABS software, btw. It got better over time as they worked the bugs out of the software, got more powerful computers and better sensors. I was probably better at braking than ABS for years. Now I just slam the brake pedal to the floor and let ABS handle it.
I expect the driver assist software to follow the same progression. It's a hard set of problems they're trying to solve.
I test drove the i3 and thought it was a nice car. Roomy, zippy, and different in a good way as far as design goes. But the range kills it for me. Nothing under a hundred miles of range peaks my interest anymore. After 800 miles in my Model S with no range anxiety it would seem like a major step backwards to go back to driving a car with 80 miles of range. It is baffling to me why they did so much work to get the weight down only to put in a small battery. I hope one of the other manufactures comes out with battery pack options soon. A Leaf with a 120 mile range would be great.
meteoritehunter
Member
Indeed, it would be pathetic if that were the case, but it is not. It's one of the many myths and incorrect statements about the i3.
The i3 gas tank may be refilled as often as needed to continue of trip of infinite duration on gas power alone. Running on gas will NOT recharge the battery up to full, but instead will attempt to maintain the battery at a fixed level of charge (6% in the US, user selectable in other markets). The battery becomes a buffer which is filled up to this limit when the power draw is below what the engine provides, and which is drained when the power draw is above the 25 kW or so the engine can maintain.
For most driving 25 kW average power usage plus using the battery's power for peaks above that is enough.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Please do not spread false rumors, you are sounding like FOX. Yes you can fill with gas and drive straight across the country similar to the Volt. Until the infrastructure is in place for super charging everywhere a gasoline back up can be helpful. It allows one to do 95%+ of their driving on clean electricity and for those few times you need the range you have it.
BMW i3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BMW i3 Electric Car: ReX Range Extender Not For Daily Use? (Page 2)
Herbert Diess, global R&D boss for BMW: "The range extender is not intended for daily use. It's for situations when the driver needs to extend the range of the vehicle to reach the next charging station. Therefore, the i3 probably won't be the choice for customers with a need for an extended range."
I'm not spreading rumors. I'm repeating what BMW has said.
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/bmw-i3-range-extender-motoring-review-this-car-is-an-electric-dream-9217479.html
The range-extender i3 goes 470.8mpg with 13g/km CO2, but unlike a Vauxhall Ampera, a range-extender with a much bigger engine, you will always have to plug your i3 into the mains when the range is used up.
I think the false rumor is that you can just refill the gas tank and continue on. That is not the case. The ReX is only barely able to maintain the speed of the car when the battery goes dead. You basically MUST recharge.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually it is the case. It is not a myth.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/bmw-i3-range-extender-motoring-review-this-car-is-an-electric-dream-9217479.html
The range-extender i3 goes 470.8mpg with 13g/km CO2, but unlike a Vauxhall Ampera, a range-extender with a much bigger engine, you will always have to plug your i3 into the mains when the range is used up.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]The ReX is designed to supplement the battery but it is not really powerful enough to maintain the battery with standard highway driving. Once the battery is drained you HAVE to plug in to continue. Every reference I see says it is only designed to get you to the next charging station.[/FONT]
BMW i3 Electric Car: ReX Range Extender Not For Daily Use? (Page 2)
Herbert Diess, global R&D boss for BMW: "The range extender is not intended for daily use. It's for situations when the driver needs to extend the range of the vehicle to reach the next charging station. Therefore, the i3 probably won't be the choice for customers with a need for an extended range."
I'm not spreading rumors. I'm repeating what BMW has said.
- - - Updated - - -
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/bmw-i3-range-extender-motoring-review-this-car-is-an-electric-dream-9217479.html
The range-extender i3 goes 470.8mpg with 13g/km CO2, but unlike a Vauxhall Ampera, a range-extender with a much bigger engine, you will always have to plug your i3 into the mains when the range is used up.
I think the false rumor is that you can just refill the gas tank and continue on. That is not the case. The ReX is only barely able to maintain the speed of the car when the battery goes dead. You basically MUST recharge.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually it is the case. It is not a myth.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/road-tests/bmw-i3-range-extender-motoring-review-this-car-is-an-electric-dream-9217479.html
The range-extender i3 goes 470.8mpg with 13g/km CO2, but unlike a Vauxhall Ampera, a range-extender with a much bigger engine, you will always have to plug your i3 into the mains when the range is used up.
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]The ReX is designed to supplement the battery but it is not really powerful enough to maintain the battery with standard highway driving. Once the battery is drained you HAVE to plug in to continue. Every reference I see says it is only designed to get you to the next charging station.[/FONT]
You are misunderstanding what is written there. What they are trying to say is that the ReX will not charge up the battery. One MUST use the (britishism) "mains" to charge the car. The ReX is able to propel the car on it's own and maintain the battery at a fixed level charge...but it will not INCREASE that level.
That doesn't mean one cannot drive the car on gas alone when the battery range is "used up".
But once you get to your destination, you cannot just sit there and expect the ReX to charge the battery up. It won't even run when the car is stationary.
My understanding is that @woof is correct.
It is disappointing that some press sources have gotten confused about the i3 in this regard. I'm not a big fan of the car, but it deserves to be represented accurately.
