Quote:
Originally Posted by Germanauto
It's definitely a good car objectively, but sales show the public would rather not be seen in one.
Basically, every EV type car in existence has had this issue besides Tesla, for obvious reasons.
|
There are plenty of unattractive ICE vehicles that nevertheless sell briskly. So, the positive correlation between vehicles that run solely on electric power and exhibit subjectively poor aesthetics to you is registering a false positive on causation of "low" sell-through. The Toyota Prius is one counter-example. I'm sure others exist.
So, instead let's look at two other factors at play: a) value and b) convenience. If we take the Prius I mention above as an example, it has a starting price of about $24k and offers convenience that is equivalent to a pure-ICE powered vehicle. That is to say, since it has an ICE, it can be refueled at a gas station, and therefore there is no range anxiety. Remember that range anxiety has three components:
- concern about vehicle range on a single charge
- concern about being left with nowhere to recharge
- concern that charging takes too much time
What we can take away from this is, when an EV can be purchased for a reasonable amount, can go an adequate distance on a single charge, has access to ample charging stations, and can be charged in roughly the same amount of time an ICE vehicle can be fueled, the public will buy the EV irrespective of the fact that it may not be the most beautiful vehicle on the stage. Now obviously not every EV is going to be "cheap" - luxury EV's will still command luxury prices just like ICE vehicles do. But the range anxiety issues *must* be addressed.
So, while we can debate a vehicle's appearance ad infinitum (though I would politely point out that where the i3 in concerned, strictly speaking, that topic should probably be discussed in a different thread), at the end of the debate, not everyone is going to agree on what looks good, what looks bad, and indeed, how much the appearance matters to begin with. So in fact it is not "undeniable" that an EV looks "bad". No, what is undeniable is that billions of dollars are being poured into EV R&D to overcome the limitations I mention above. As those become addressed in ways that move closer and closer to the target customer's criteria for an MVP to replace their ICE, you will see EV proliferate quickly. It will happen because 150 billion dollars says that it will happen.
Getting back around to the i3, it will be replaced sometime next decade by an i1 riding on FAAR WE (electric UKL). Will it be less polarizing aesthetically than the i3? Perhaps, but it isn't going to look like an Aston Martin sports car or grand tourer either. It's going to look vaguely like the F40 1 Series with the i-brand cues similar to the recent iX3 concept. It might even have the weird connected kidneys that everyone seems to dislike. But if it costs roughly the same as the gasoline counterpart and offers roughly (or even just *sufficiently*) equivalent convenience, it will sell, and it will sell briskly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mundo74
... why just not go all the way and jetisson this whole design and create an electric version of the 2,3,4 and 5 series.
|
That's essentially what they are planning as we speak. Although they will not just be passenger car products like the ones you mention, but light trucks (their SAV lineup) as well.