[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by -EndOfAnEra-

ynguldyn thanks for that. Do you have the 1st year production numbers for the F80/F82/F83 for comparison?

12 months of North American F80 - 2280.
Same for F82 - 5500.
4 months of F83 - 880.

[sward]

He is talking about the XM or X8

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by FCX5

The opposite is more likely to be true.

Take a look at a documentary called The Dark Side of Green Energy



then wake up

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by overfreeze

It's funny how quickly G8x owners jump at defending their car when all we asked for was a source for what you stated. Without any facts to back up your claim, what you said was anecdotal at best or just completely wrong.

I don’t own one.

Next

Of course that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still selling at a higher rate at the same period of time as the previous generations did. I understand this bothers you. Like I said before, pills and whiskey brother pills and whiskey.

[overfreeze]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I don’t own one.

Next

Of course that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still selling at a higher rate at the same period of time as the previous generations did. I understand this bothers you. Like I said before, pills and whiskey brother pills and whiskey.

I don't think you understand what facts are...

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

They're only doing it because they sell to 3rd world countries (rural US included) that don't have the infrastructure.

Neither do first world countries. I travel in every major city in the United States every year and no one has the infrastructure for this yet.

“Third World countries”

You think because there’s random Tesla stations here and there that barely anyone goes to we have the infrastructure to force 500 million cars on people that are EV only in the next 10 years? I’ve seen the current infrastructure that we have and we are going to have to make it 10,000 times bigger to even think about going all EV. What kind of carbon footprint will that create? Plus where are we going to get all the electricity for these charging stations? We had better start getting permits to build new coal fired power plants all over the place. What kind of carbon footprint is that going to create?

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by overfreeze

I don't think you understand what facts are...

I understand what your facts are. Very much.

I had to come back and add this. I mean you guys really really really really hate this car don’t you? I mean seething and frothing at the mouth hatred.

[EXE46]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

That sounds more like your opinion. Everyone keeps saying BMW is behind VW/Audi and Mercedes but I fail to see how and where. Last I checked, BMW will be the first to release an EV that will be priced for the masses. What does Audi have? An etron GT with a $100,000 price tag. What does Mercedes have? An EQS that will likely be priced more than a ICE-powered S Class.

It seems you and many others are caught up in the speculation of future products, the marketing and spectacle of what has been released. I'm not saying BMW is ahead, but they're definitely not behind. I'm far more interested in the i4 and what that could do for the future of EV in this segment than the etron GT and EQS which is meant more for the wealthy rather than the masses.

To add even further, the worlds largest and most profitable automaker-Toytota hasn't even gotten this far. They're just now working on their first EV which will be a crossover.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by EXE46

To add even further, the worlds largest and most profitable automaker-Toytota hasn't even gotten this far. They're just now working on their first EV which will be a crossover.

I drive 40,000 miles a year for work and I picked the Camry hybrid as my choice to drive. It’s 42 miles to the gallon on the highway and it’s extremely comfortable. Hybrids make a lot more sense than EV considering our current infrastructure and the complications revolving around changing it to support all EV.

[EXE46]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I drive 40,000 miles a year for work and I picked the Camry hybrid as my choice to drive. It's 42 miles to the gallon on the highway and it's extremely comfortable. Hybrids make a lot more sense than EV considering our current infrastructure and the complications revolving around changing it to support all EV.

I hear you, no fight in this game.. I will own ICE for as long as they're available in 6 cylinders. Toyota themselves opposed the EV bandwagon hence why they're just getting in.

[cbertels]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I don’t own one.

Next

Of course that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still selling at a higher rate at the same period of time as the previous generations did. I understand this bothers you. Like I said before, pills and whiskey brother pills and whiskey.

Didn't you post about yours being in transit?

[RowanBuds]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

12 months of North American F80 - 2280.
Same for F82 - 5500.
4 months of F83 - 880.

Thank you for sharing both, and at the same time I'm astonished you did. So, I'm assuming my calculator is not broken here, but that leaves us with 12 months of fixed-roof production at:

F8X: 2,280 (F80) = 5,500 (F82) = 7,780

G8X: 3,430 (G80) + 3,030 (G82) = 6,460

And G83 on the same 4 month timeframe: F8X: 880 G8X: 280. (minus 600 units on the vert)

Total of -1,920 units, or almost 30%... I can't believe that's entirely chip shortage; F8x's weren't exactly easy to find for most of year 1 either.

Seems all this bluster about 'fastest selling ever' isn't likely to be based on facts to me.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Neither do first world countries. I travel in every major city in the United States every year and no one has the infrastructure for this yet.

“Third World countries”

You think because there’s random Tesla stations here and there that barely anyone goes to we have the infrastructure to force 500 million cars on people that are EV only in the next 10 years? I’ve seen the current infrastructure that we have and we are going to have to make it 10,000 times bigger to even think about going all EV. What kind of carbon footprint will that create? Plus where are we going to get all the electricity for these charging stations? We had better start getting permits to build new coal fired power plants all over the place. What kind of carbon footprint is that going to create?

Finally someone with common sense

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by RowanBuds

Thank you for sharing both, and at the same time I'm astonished you did. So, I'm assuming my calculator is not broken here, but that leaves us with 12 months of fixed-roof production at:

F8X: 2,280 (F80) = 5,500 (F82) = 7,780

G8X: 3,430 (G80) + 3,030 (G82) = 6,460

And G83 on the same 4 month timeframe: F8X: 880 G8X: 280. (minus 600 units on the vert)

Total of -1,920 units, or almost 30%... I can't believe that's entirely chip shortage; F8x's weren't exactly easy to find for most of year 1 either.

Seems all this bluster about 'fastest selling ever' isn't likely to be based on facts to me.

I appreciate you posting this. I will assume that it’s accurate. It proves my point exactly. Considering COVID-19 and the part shortage you can see how the new generation M3 sales are significantly better then the previous generation.. To make things worse these numbers obviously don’t include how many orders have been placed and unfulfilled or the allocations requested either. Those numbers are astronomical. Once again thanks for posting that.

Lastly before responding with some smart ass remark I realize you’re going to disagree with me. That’s fine. I ask you to call around and inquire from sales people that have been around for years and see the difference in enthusiasm, orders and allocation requests. Also my only point has been from the beginning that just because some die hard traditionalists on this forum hate change and want to see the same grille on every BMW for the next millennium are upset that doesn’t mean most people don’t like the new design. The sales numbers prove people like it just fine. At the end of the day you don’t have to buy one. So be blessed and have a great evening.

I also realize you’re still going to respond with a smart ass remark so go ahead

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by giphlag

Some of you guys must have your head stuck in the sand; are you even following the larger auto industry as a whole?
The electrification of every product line at pretty much every automaker is now a done deal wether we like it or not. We can complain/bitch/moan about it all day but this isn't some speculation or rumors anymore.
The entire German and U.S. auto industry is re-training, re-tooling, re-building their plants, workers and product lines. Charging stations are popping up by the 100s every month. Battery technology is improving, using less rare-earth materials and improving densities. Recycling business is also coming along, look up Redwood Materials. Major investments happening in that aspect and something I hope to invest in going forward.
Furthermore, over 80% of EV charging happens at home overnight. The idea that there will be stranded EVs on the side of the road everywhere and long lines at charging stations is hilarious at best and at worst just plain fear mongering.
Look, I'm as much of a gear/motorsport head as any of you but I'm also a realist. I'm 41 and hope to live another 40 years at least. This means I need to be willing to give this change a shot because guess what, at the end of the day it's gonna happen and there's nothing we can do. Don't be that guy who still buys an ICE family car in 2 years and then complains by 2028 why no one wants to buy it. Be smart about this change. Use it to your advantage... keep a fun weekend/track car and shift the rest to EV.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change" (Charles Darwin)

"Kodak Failed By Asking The Wrong Marketing Question
Avi Dan - Jan 23, 2012, 09:59am - source: here
For 40 years, you couldn’t walk through Grand Central Station in New York
 without admiring the Kodak Coloramas. These 18x60 foot photographs showcased the Kodak brand to commuters, highlighting the creativity of great photography in a series of “Kodak moments.” Kodak marketing executives were adept at weaving the brand into the fabric of America for generations. In fact, at its peak, Kodak captured 90% of the US film market and was one of the world’s most valuable brands.
Immensely successful companies can become myopic and product oriented instead of focusing on consumers’ needs. Kodak’s story of failing has its roots in its success, which made it resistant to change. Its insular corporate culture believed that its strength was in its brand and marketing, and it underestimated the threat of digital.
Kodak did not fail because it missed the digital age. It actually invented the first digital camera in 1975. However, instead of marketing the new technology, the company held back for fear of hurting its lucrative film business, even after digital products were reshaping the market.
Unfortunately, the company had the nearsighted view that it was in the film business instead of the story telling business, and it believed that it could protect its massive share of market with its marketing. Kodak thought that its new digital technology would cannibalize its film business. Sony and Canon saw an opening and charged ahead with their digital cameras. When Kodak decided to get in the game it was too late. The company saw its market share decline, as digital imaging became dominant.
This blind faith in marketing’s ability to overcome the threat from the new technology proved fatal. Kodak failed to adapt to a new marketplace and new consumer attitudes.
The essence of marketing is asking first, “what business are we in?” and not “how do we sell more products?” Had early 20th Century railroad executives seen themselves as being in the transportation business rather than the railroad business, or had Hollywood moguls in the 1940s understood that they are in the entertainment business, not just the movie business, their industries wouldn’t have been decimated by air travel and TV shows, respectively.
Kodak made a classic mistake: it didn’t ask the right question. It focused on selling more product, instead of the business that it was in, story telling.
What’s the lesson to other companies on how to avoid Kodak’s fate?
Companies have to adapt to the requirements of the market, even if that means competing with themselves. Technology has the potential to be disruptive of markets and companies, at the same time that it is benefiting consumers. Survival is not a likely strategy in today's marketplace. In this environment, marketers should strive for entrepreneurial greatness and innovation, not to just determine preference among existing options.
Marketing is not the art of selling products, as Kodak thought. Smart marketing is about providing a company’s customer base value satisfaction. In short, marketing is tasked with keeping the company relevant to their customers’ needs. In an age in which the consumer is in charge, approaching marketing from the perspective of products or services alone is not enough to make consumers want to engage."

"Kodak’s Downfall Wasn’t About Technology
Scott D. Anthony - July 15, 2016 - source: see here
A generation ago, a “Kodak moment” meant something that was worth saving and savoring. Today, the term increasingly serves as a corporate bogeyman that warns executives of the need to stand up and respond when disruptive developments encroach on their market. Unfortunately, as time marches on the subtleties of what actually happened to Eastman Kodak are being forgotten, leading executives to draw the wrong conclusions from its struggles.
Given that Kodak’s core business was selling film, it is not hard to see why the last few decades proved challenging. Cameras went digital and then disappeared into cellphones. People went from printing pictures to sharing them online. Sure, people print nostalgic books and holiday cards, but that volume pales in comparison to Kodak’s heyday. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012, exited legacy businesses and sold off its patents before re-emerging as a sharply smaller company in 2013. Once one of the most powerful companies in the world, today the company has a market capitalization of less than $1 billion.
Why did this happen?
An easy explanation is myopia. Kodak was so blinded by its success that it completely missed the rise of digital technologies. But that doesn’t square with reality. After all, the first prototype of a digital camera was created in 1975 by Steve Sasson, an engineer working for … Kodak. The camera was as big as a toaster, took 20 seconds to take an image, had low quality, and required complicated connections to a television to view, but it clearly had massive disruptive potential.
Spotting something and doing something about it are very different things. So, another explanation is that Kodak invented the technology but didn’t invest in it. Sasson himself told The New York Times that management’s response to his digital camera was “that’s cute – but don’t tell anyone about it.” A good line, but not completely accurate. In fact, Kodak invested billions to develop a range of digital cameras.
Doing something and doing the right thing are also different things. The next explanation is that Kodak mismanaged its investment in digital cameras, overshooting the market by trying to match performance of traditional film rather than embrace the simplicity of digital. That criticism perhaps held in early iterations of Kodak’s digital cameras (the $20,000 DCS-100, for example), but Kodak ultimately embraced simplicity, carving out a strong market position with technologies that made it easy to move pictures from cameras to computers.
All of that is moot, the next argument goes, because the real disruption occurred when cameras merged with phones, and people shifted from printing pictures to posting them on social media and mobile phone apps. And Kodak totally missed that.
But it didn’t, entirely.
Before Mark Zuckerberg wrote a line of Facebook’s code, Kodak made a prescient purchase, acquiring a photo sharing site called Ofoto in 2001. It was so close. Imagine if Kodak had truly embraced its historical tagline of “share memories, share life.” Perhaps it could have rebranded Ofoto as Kodak Moments (instead of EasyShare Gallery), making it the pioneer of a new category called life networking where people could share pictures, personal updates, and links to news and information. Maybe in 2010 it would have lured a young engineer from Google named Kevin Systrom to create a mobile version of the site.
In real life, unfortunately, Kodak used Ofoto to try to get more people to print digital images. It sold the site to Shutterfly as part of its bankruptcy plan for less than $25 million in April 2012. That same month Facebook plunked down $1 billion to acquire Instagram, the 13-employee company Systrom had co-founded 18 months earlier.
There were other ways in which Kodak could have emerged from the digital disruption of its core business. Consider Fuji Photo Film. As Rita Gunther McGrath describes in her compelling book The End of Competitive Advantage, in the 1980s Fuji was a distant second in the film business to Kodak. While Kodak stagnated and ultimately stumbled, Fuji aggressively explored new opportunities, creating products adjacent to its film business, such as magnetic tape optics and videotape, and branching into copiers and office automation, notably through a joint venture with Xerox. Today the company has annual revenues above $20 billion, competes in healthcare and electronics operations and derives significant revenues from document solutions.
The right lessons from Kodak are subtle. Companies often see the disruptive forces affecting their industry. They frequently divert sufficient resources to participate in emerging markets. Their failure is usually an inability to truly embrace the new business models the disruptive change opens up. Kodak created a digital camera, invested in the technology, and even understood that photos would be shared online. Where they failed was in realizing that online photo sharing was the new business, not just a way to expand the printing business.
So, if your company is beginning to talk about a digital transformation, make sure you ask three questions:
- What business are we in today? Don’t answer the question with technologies, offerings, or categories. Instead, define the problem you are solving for customers, or, in our parlance “the job you are doing for them.” For Kodak, that’s the difference between framing itself as a chemical film company vs. an imaging company vs. a moment-sharing company.
- What new opportunities does the disruption open up? Our colleague Clark Gilbert described more than a decade ago a great irony of disruption. Perceived as a threat, disruption is actually a great growth opportunity. Disruption always grows markets, but it also always transforms business models. Gilbert’s research showed how executives who perceive threats are rigid in response; those who see opportunities are expansive.
- What capabilities do we need to realize these opportunities? Another great irony is that incumbents are best positioned to seize disruptive opportunities. After all, they have many capabilities that entrants are racing to replicate, such as access to markets, technologies, and healthy balance sheets. Of course, these capabilities impose constraints as well, and are almost always insufficient to compete in new markets in new ways. Approach new growth with appropriate humility.
Kodak remains a sad story of potential lost. The American icon had the talent, the money, and even the foresight to make the transition. Instead it ended up the victim of the aftershocks of a disruptive change. Learn the right lessons, and you can avoid its fate."

[giphlag]

Originally Posted by Tallest

Green they are NOT. They do shift pollution away from cities I suppose. Thats all I mean by green. They are of course not green when you produce batteries in China using coal powerplants (like Polestar for example). And they are not green when you gonna recycle the battery in 10-20 years. But as consumer product they are pretty good in some way.

I don't know about your statement for Polestar but it appears you are using a worst case scenario for the entire EV industry which isn't really fair. In the U.S. the EPA uses the GREET model by Argonne National Laboratory. They have done extensive studies on this and have shown that EVs are better overall in Greenhouse Gas emissions compared to ICE vehicles.

Furthermore, we are only at the beginning of battery technology for human transport and things will only improve from here on.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Neither do first world countries. I travel in every major city in the United States every year and no one has the infrastructure for this yet.

EV owners don't charge the way you think. The chargers you're not seeing (because you're not really paying attention - they are everywhere: proper Tesla Superchargers, their equivalents, and those little things that every big box store has installed) are a secondary means of getting energy into the batteries. They're only needed on longer trips. Most of the time EVs are charged at home.

The civilized parts of the US are not getting their electricity from coal and won't need it no matter how many EVs are put on the road because solar and wind are dirt cheap. Check where all the new power is coming from these days and how much it costs - you'll be surprised.

But like I said - there's the 3rd world and its equivalent parts of the US where this won't work, at least for a while. They'll keep buying their 330i dealer lot specials and think they're on the top of the world.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I understand what your facts are. Very much.

I had to come back and add this. I mean you guys really really really really hate this car don’t you? I mean seething and frothing at the mouth hatred.

No, it drives impressively good, but the way it looks... really!? Why??

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I appreciate you posting this. I will assume that it’s accurate. It proves my point exactly. Considering COVID-19 and the part shortage you can see how the new generation M3 sales are significantly better then the previous generation.. To make things worse these numbers obviously don’t include how many orders have been placed and unfulfilled or the allocations requested either. Those numbers are astronomical. Once again thanks for posting that.

It does take a very nimble mind to perform the gymnastics necessary to claim that 6460 is greater than 7780.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

It does take a very nimble mind to perform the gymnastics necessary to claim that 6460 is greater than 7780.

Ah yes, Boston. My family is from there.

No it doesn’t really. I’m giving you credit and assuming the numbers you provided are correct. My argument from the beginning has been my dealership and several other dealerships in my area in Florida say they’ve had way more G80 sales than they did F80 sales in the same time period. Your numbers show that. Also you are not considering everything that should go into the calculations for this. So what we should do is wait until the moron governments of the earth allow capitalism to go back into full affect and fulfill all demand orders. Then we can come back to this conversation. However there’s no doubt in my mind you know what’s going to happen. It wont be close. The same thing is happening on the Corvette forums. A small group of traditionalists just like here, absolutely hate with complete contempt the new design. But that doesn’t matter because the new design is taking over and also bringing in new people that didn’t like the Corvette before. Very similar to this new G80. I understand some men don’t like change. It seems to be very difficult for some people here to accept. I get it. I personally have a hard time with certain things that have changed around me.

Actually you guys have been very reasonable in this discussion and I appreciate that. Some guys just get plain right mean and nasty about it. Who would’ve thought changing a grille that has looked the same for 30 years would cause such distain and turmoil within a group that has contained for the most part traditionally like-minded people in their admiration and love for a brand? Not me, but then I’m new to BMW.

I appreciate your comments and let’s get back together when production is ramped back up to 100%. We will know then which M3 in BMW history has sold the most. I believe because of what we have seen so far it will be no contest but if I’m wrong I will fully admit it.

[Spiff7]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Ah yes, Boston. My family is from there.

No it doesn’t really. I’m giving you credit and assuming the numbers you provided are correct. My argument from the beginning has been my dealership and several other dealerships in my area in Florida say they’ve had way more G80 sales than they did F80 sales in the same time period. Your numbers show that. Also you are not considering everything that should go into the calculations for this. So what we should do is wait until the moron governments of the earth allow capitalism to go back into full affect and fulfill all demand orders. Then we can come back to this conversation. However there’s no doubt in my mind you know what’s going to happen. It wont be close. The same thing is happening on the Corvette forums. A small group of traditionalists just like here, absolutely hate with complete contempt the new design. But that doesn’t matter because the new design is taking over and also bringing in new people that didn’t like the Corvette before. Very similar to this new G80. I understand some men don’t like change. It seems to be very difficult for some people here to accept. I get it. I personally have a hard time with certain things that have changed around me.

Actually you guys have been very reasonable in this discussion and I appreciate that. Some guys just get plain right mean and nasty about it. Who would’ve thought changing a grille that has looked the same for 30 years would cause such distain and turmoil within a group that has contained for the most part traditionally like-minded people in their admiration and love for a brand? Not me, but then I’m new to BMW.

I appreciate your comments and let’s get back together when production is ramped back up to 100%. We will know then which M3 in BMW history has sold the most. I believe because of what we have seen so far it will be no contest but if I’m wrong I will fully admit it.

Originally Posted by Patton250

Ah yes, Boston. My family is from there.

No it doesn't really. I'm giving you credit and assuming the numbers you provided are correct. My argument from the beginning has been my dealership and several other dealerships in my area in Florida say they've had way more G80 sales than they did F80 sales in the same time period. Your numbers show that. Also you are not considering everything that should go into the calculations for this. So what we should do is wait until the moron governments of the earth allow capitalism to go back into full affect and fulfill all demand orders. Then we can come back to this conversation. However there's no doubt in my mind you know what's going to happen. It wont be close. The same thing is happening on the Corvette forums. A small group of traditionalists just like here, absolutely hate with complete contempt the new design. But that doesn't matter because the new design is taking over and also bringing in new people that didn't like the Corvette before. Very similar to this new G80. I understand some men don't like change. It seems to be very difficult for some people here to accept. I get it. I personally have a hard time with certain things that have changed around me.

Actually you guys have been very reasonable in this discussion and I appreciate that. Some guys just get plain right mean and nasty about it. Who would've thought changing a grille that has looked the same for 30 years would cause such distain and turmoil within a group that has contained for the most part traditionally like-minded people in their admiration and love for a brand? Not me, but then I'm new to BMW.

I appreciate your comments and let's get back together when production is ramped back up to 100%. We will know then which M3 in BMW history has sold the most. I believe because of what we have seen so far it will be no contest but if I'm wrong I will fully admit it.

Oh I would definitely believe what a dealer and car salesman told me lol

[Tallest]

Originally Posted by giphlag

I don't know about your statement for Polestar but it appears you are using a worst case scenario for the entire EV industry which isn't really fair. In the U.S. the EPA uses the GREET model by Argonne National Laboratory. They have done extensive studies on this and have shown that EVs are better overall in Greenhouse Gas emissions compared to ICE vehicles.

Furthermore, we are only at the beginning of battery technology for human transport and things will only improve from here on.

We are on same page re EV vs ICE. Polestar disclosed their CO2 impact in production vs normal car, but that will improve of course (it is Chinese coal that plays part).

The point I made over EVs being not as green as people think is simple:
- there are energy losses which you take when charge EV (as it travels from powerplant, to grid, through transformer, to your socket)
- there are issues with battery recycling on massive scale in 10 years but we are simply told that they will be used to store energy (may be in some advanced western part of society, but in most cases I can tell you what will happen - Western Europe and USA will be selling these batteries with cars in them to Africa and poorer parts of the world, as almost gifts, like they do today with solar panels - and leave the recycling problem there, not at home). And yes, I think this is dodgy gift, but this is what has been always done by richer countries, and especially last 100 years+. Corruption in poorer countries certainly not helpful, but we also will forbid them to mine fossil fuels and get richer (instead, we offer them our left overs). This is sketchy but no one thinks about this. It is easier that way I suppose...
- there will be new better technologies making batteries last longer and be more efficient which will mitigate those above issues of course but not exponentially. Solar panels no longer improve so fast.

Remember, to recycle a battery you need to rip it apart and separate cobalt, nickel etc. It is currently a lot cheaper (5x or so) to keep mining cobalt (especially in africa, child labour is a big issue). A lot of battery recycling taking place in india looks horrendous if you bother to look. People by hand taking things apart for next to nothing.

Recycling batteries will be the big impact and I hope someone like car companies will be taking this on board. Otherwise we are gonna have same pollution issue like we did till 70-80s with leaded fuel. A problem, that was for 50 years known and people just ate up.

But other than those issues I outlined, of course EVs are greener today. Especially if you get rid of the polluting crap that is the 80-90s cars that still are on the road. Im looking at you the guy with Honda Civic 1995 which "never breaks down".