[Mark]

BIMMERPOST NEWS

BMW Hires lead engineer for the Chevy Volt, Frank Weber

11
COMMENTS

Tweet

Just a a day ago, when I first read that Frank Weber, Chevrolet Volt lead engineer turned Opel executive, it got my mind thinking. Likely some sort of internal politics? Disagreement on strategies? Well, it seems to be the case that BMW is taking its commitment to electric thinking very seriously and going for the jugular.

Reports right now are indicating that it was in fact BMW who has hired Mr. Weber away from Opel. Mr. Weber will be working directly under BMW's head of research and development, Klaus Draeger. Although no engineering slouch, BMW's expertise in the arena of EVs has certainly increased with the addition of Mr. Weber, who is a German native himself and should make the transition fairly easily.

The future seems bright for BMW and its push into electric vehicles with its BMW i sub-brand that will see the launch of the light-weight carbon-fibre electric powered i3 and i8 in 2013 (with a preview of the vehicles at the 2012 London Olympics).

[Source: AutoBlog]

[antzcrashing]

BMW moving all the pawns in the direction of the "Electrical Car Queen".

Be careful though BMW, if you shy away from convincing USA that Diesel is the way, how will you convince us that plugging in our cars is practical?

I believe electric cars can be in fact more practical than IC, because you could never have to visit the pump (just charge overnight) - but many people don't agree.

[kmarei]

so how far we from a 12v 335 and a 15v M3?
with the 335 owners saying they can mod their car with a JB23+ to put out 16v!!

[Eccentric]

Originally Posted by kmarei

so how far we from a 12v 335 and a 15v M3?
with the 335 owners saying they can mod their car with a JB23 to put out 16v!!

Niiice

[txz4]

yuk, hydrogen or bust. anything else isnt a even solution.

[Cuz5150]

Originally Posted by txz4

yuk, hydrogen or bust. anything else isnt a even solution.

^^^This^^^

I'm with you

[///M 4 Life]

Originally Posted by txz4

yuk, hydrogen or bust. anything else isnt a even solution.

i feel like hydrogen was a great idea but to damn dangerous. Electric is def the future

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

BMW moving all the pawns in the direction of the "Electrical Car Queen".

Be careful though BMW, if you shy away from convincing USA that Diesel is the way, how will you convince us that plugging in our cars is practical?

I believe electric cars can be in fact more practical than IC, because you could never have to visit the pump (just charge overnight) - but many people don't agree.

The people who don't agree with electric cars are the ones who understand the technology, fuel producing infrastructure, and economics at play.

Petroleum-based fuels are going to remain the primary fuel for transportation for the next 30- 50 years, and probably longer. The reason is very simple; petrol-based fuels provide the least expensive and highest energy density of any available fuel source. This allows for the longest possible drive cycle between fuel stops of any fuel currently produced and available in the future. It was learned over 100 years ago when there were three primary fuel sources – gasoline, electricity, steam - (all at the time with little or no infrastructure in place to produce them) that gasoline was the best energy storage fuel type. Gasoline won out the battle and now has the most efficient production infrastructure behind it, making it the cheapest fuel to produce. Any other new type of fuel source, be it hydrogen or chemical battery, has to compete with the petroleum industry to make a more cost-efficient fuel, or an at-least-as-cost-efficient fuel as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

And jet fuel is where the rub is. Millions of people a day depend on jet aircraft for travel. Jets are highly efficient in moving goods and people far distances at a low cost. Jets are able to fly because they use a fuel type that has a very high energy storage to weight ratio. There is no alternative fuel source for jets that will come on line in the near future to replace jet fuel as there is for cars such as electricity. Electricity is only viable for cars because the limit of its energy storage for drive range (of 80 - 100 miles per fill up) is somewhat acceptable in most cases. Because there is no alternative fuel source for jets, aviation transportation will rely on petrol-based fuel for the next several decades.

Although governments can try to dictate the use of alternate fuels for automobiles (such as electricity), however because there are jets flying that have to rely on petrol-based fuels, the infrastructure that makes aviation fuel will remain in place and will provide the least-expensive, highest density fuel source for cars, which will continue to be the best economical choice for automobile companies to design their products around.

Electric cars will remain as a secondary household car for those people who drive less than 80 miles between charges and can afford to own more than one vehicle, and who will rely on their IC engine car for real transporation needs. And the Volt is not an electric car anyway, it's a gasoline-powered series plug-in hybrid.

[ddigangi]

what a nerd.

hahahaha

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by ddigangi

what a nerd.

hahahaha

Says the "social network guru"

[bavarianboar]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

The people who don't agree with electric cars are the ones who understand the technology, fuel producing infrastructure, and economics at play.

Petroleum-based fuels are going to remain the primary fuel for transportation for the next 30- 50 years, and probably longer. The reason is very simple; petrol-based fuels provide the least expensive and highest energy density of any available fuel source. This allows for the longest possible drive cycle between fuel stops of any fuel currently produced and available in the future. It was learned over 100 years ago when there were three primary fuel sources – gasoline, electricity, steam - (all at the time with little or no infrastructure in place to produce them) that gasoline was the best energy storage fuel type. Gasoline won out the battle and now has the most efficient production infrastructure behind it, making it the cheapest fuel to produce. Any other new type of fuel source, be it hydrogen or chemical battery, has to compete with the petroleum industry to make a more cost-efficient fuel, or an at-least-as-cost-efficient fuel as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

And jet fuel is where the rub is. Millions of people a day depend on jet aircraft for travel. Jets are highly efficient in moving goods and people far distances at a low cost. Jets are able to fly because they use a fuel type that has a very high energy storage to weight ratio. There is no alternative fuel source for jets that will come on line in the near future to replace jet fuel as there is for cars such as electricity. Electricity is only viable for cars because the limit of its energy storage for drive range (of 80 - 100 miles per fill up) is somewhat acceptable in most cases. Because there is no alternative fuel source for jets, aviation transportation will rely on petrol-based fuel for the next several decades.

Although governments can try to dictate the use of alternate fuels for automobiles (such as electricity), however because there are jets flying that have to rely on petrol-based fuels, the infrastructure that makes aviation fuel will remain in place and will provide the least-expensive, highest density fuel source for cars, which will continue to be the best economical choice for automobile companies to design their products around.

Electric cars will remain as a secondary household car for those people who drive less than 80 miles between charges and can afford to own more than one vehicle, and who will rely on their IC engine car for real transporation needs. And the Volt is not an electric car anyway, it's a gasoline-powered series plug-in hybrid.

Did you write that yourself? You could be a journalist for a magazine,



If not, it will be nice to see more text from an article you are quoting

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by bavarianboar

Did you write that yourself? You could be a journalist for a magazine,



If not, it will be nice to see more text from an article you are quoting

No referenced article used; all original thought. I work in the transportation business related to aviation.

And another thought I didn't include is that even if a new high-density-to-weight ratio fuel was developed for jets that didn't depend on the petroleum industry for production (which would mean probably a new type of propulsion system) the transition to it would take decades. The transition would be long due to making the economics work and getting the new system flight certified. The FAA takes a really long time to adopt new technology because they run it through an extensive safety evaluation process. Switching to an entirely new propulsion system would be a huge undertaking for the FAA.