San Francisco Preview

[Elijah]

Had the chance to see it live in person in SF. Was a little rough asking questions while everyone was arguing but here is what I came away with. Was a great event, if you get the chance to go, do it. Denver, NYC area, Raleigh, Miami are next, don't quote me.

-Cabin filter - Yes. There is one, not sure where or how to service.

-Speedo can change from KM/H to MPH

-17'' on BFG will be offered. 

-Only 40% of features on configurator. USA will not get a factory bull bar = pedestrian safety. 

-BMW stopped doing emissions on diesels is why wont get it in USA. 

-Transfer cases had early issue overheating/noisy since they were being built from scratch but no catastrophic failures. Didn't know  a lot about cooler on other prototypes

-Heated and electric mirrors

-Diff Breathers where/how high- wouldn't comment 
-1st gear ratio/axel ratio- wouldn't comment 
-Fuel tank size- wouldn't comment, still determining, vehicle weight has something to do with it

-Air intake doesn't increase wading depth but they found it helps with dust intake 

-Steer damper not in final position, aware its vulnerable right now. 

-35'' "iceland version" was without lift, 35'' fits with minor trimming. 

-Asked if 35'' tire fits on backdoor with ladder, didn't know

-They're looking into Euro Pickup

-Not a lot of comments on dealer network ect. Parts will be able to order direct so I'm not concerned. (fedex, ups,ect)

-They want minimal specialty tools as possible to work on the car. 

-final pricing has lot to do with crash specification and what materials they're have to use. 

-rear seats will not lie flat

-backup cam is under to spare tire, would have like it above but that's what mirrors are for

-maintenance CAD-IT will not be put on the touch screen upfront 

-one fuse box under rear seat, second under hood (didn't confirm as they didn't open it)

-hydrogen is coming, our group lost their minds over this.

-Double sealed door I think are going to be great

-Super comfortable sitting it in, base model on road they said they want it as quiet or better than a G-wagon. Carpet is the one option they said would change sound. 

My Biggest issues knowing its a prototype:
-Didn't know about rear gas strut on door but could be an issue parked on a slat if not factory equipped. My opinion it would need one.
-Asked about dealer markups - didn't get a straight answer but they're aware and aren't able to sell direct to consumers. Could be an issue. 

 

[stickshifter]

Great set of updates - thanks!

I did not know that BMW had ended all diesel sales in the U.S.  I'm a bit floored by that, but it supports the arguments that I, and some other folk on here, have been making about the downsides of modern diesels.  See this thread for example: https://www.theineosforum.com/post/no-diesel-variant-in-north-america-12248215?pid=1331716967

Article on BMW ending diesel sales:
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bmw-diesels-discontinued-us-2019/

I don't get the hydrogen hype for cars. In today's lingo, there are two types of hydrogen: Blue Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen.

Blue Hydrogen: the power for the electrolysis process to separate hydrogen from water is derived from fossil fuels. In the U.S., about 10 million metric tons of hydrogen are produced from oil and gas annually, and much more than that globally. However, only 1% of global hydrogen production is currently using carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions. So this form of producing hydrogen is not a "green" solution to energy needs. The use-case for blue hydrogen in cars is to relocate the site of emissions from congested urban areas to some other place - but you still have emissions. Oil companies promote blue hydrogen with carbon capture for obvious reasons (the continued use of fossil fuels), but the reality is that we are a long, long way from the widespread use of carbon capture.

Green Hydrogen: uses renewable energy to separate hydrogen from water. Only a tiny fraction of hydrogen being produced now is done so using renewable energy. You might argue, however, that this could change in the future. Sure, but even if most hydrogen we use for fuel ends up getting produced using renewable energy, there is still a very significant problem: green hydrogen production requires a lot of electricity to power the electrolysis process – electricity that could otherwise be used to directly power homes, transportation and industry. It is more efficient to use the electricity from renewables directly, rather than to use it to make hydrogen. The best use-case for green hydrogen is for powering something like a hydrogen plane (in development now). Planes have high emissions, and will probably never fly on electric batteries. Using green energy to make hydrogen involves a lot of loss of energy, but might be worth the inefficiencies in exchange for green flight. According to the report below, you get about 80% efficiency from using renewable energy to make electricity for use in an electric car; you only get about 30% efficiency from using renewable energy to make hydrogen for use in a car.

 
This graphic comes from a report produced by Earth Justice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund), which is definitely an environmental organization, but it is one of the oldest in the U.S. and not one that is considered "radical". I just pasted in a link to the report, but it looks like the full pdf of the report is here:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/hydrogen_earthjustice_2021.pdf

 

[Elijah]

Oh interesting. Thanks for posting, haven't looked into hydrogen much since it doesn't fit my needs

 

[Bruce]

I get why Ineos is pursuing hydrogen given their main business, but in big-picture terms it doesn't make sense to me. They don't want to go state by state and push re-writes of the "Tesla laws" so they can go direct-to-consumer, or go through the hoops of getting the diesel brought to the US, but they want to encourage the worldwide build-out of refueling infrastructure that almost nobody is asking for?

 

[stickshifter]

I get why Ineos is pursuing hydrogen given their main business, but in big-picture terms it doesn't make sense to me. They don't want to go state by state and push re-writes of the "Tesla laws" so they can go direct-to-consumer, or go through the hoops of getting the diesel brought to the US, but they want to encourage the worldwide build-out of refueling infrastructure that almost nobody is asking for?

I agree with you on the hydrogen. Not only would it require building out new infrastructure, but it does not seem like the right fuel source for cars - based on efficiency calculations: there are two types of hydrogen: Blue Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen.

Blue Hydrogen: the power for the electrolysis process to separate hydrogen from water is derived from fossil fuels. In the U.S., about 10 million metric tons of hydrogen are produced from oil and gas annually, and much more than that globally. However, only 1% of global hydrogen production is currently using carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions. So this form of producing hydrogen is not a "green" solution to energy needs. The use-case for blue hydrogen in cars is to relocate the site of emissions from congested urban areas to some other place - but you still have emissions. Oil companies promote blue hydrogen with carbon capture for obvious reasons (the continued use of fossil fuels), but the reality is that we are a long, long way from the widespread use of carbon capture.

Green Hydrogen: uses renewable energy to separate hydrogen from water. Only a tiny fraction of hydrogen being produced now is done so using renewable energy. You might argue, however, that this could change in the future. Sure, but even if most hydrogen we use for fuel ends up getting produced using renewable energy, there is still a very significant problem: green hydrogen production requires a lot of electricity to power the electrolysis process – electricity that could otherwise be used to directly power homes, transportation and industry. It is more efficient to use the electricity from renewables directly, rather than to use it to make hydrogen. The best use-case for green hydrogen is for powering something like a hydrogen plane (in development now). Planes have high emissions, and will probably never fly on electric batteries. Using green energy to make hydrogen involves a lot of loss of energy, but might be worth the inefficiencies in exchange for green flight. According to the report below, you get about 80% efficiency from using renewable energy to make electricity for use in an electric car; you only get about 30% efficiency from using renewable energy to make hydrogen for use in a car.

 

 

[Jeremy996]

Hydrogen is a really good fit for work vehicles on a large, fixed site, (like Ineos), and vehicles used intensively, (24/7/365). For a petrochemical group it makes a great Trojan horse for greenwashing, so I can see the fit here.

Still, if they make a Fuel Cell Battery Electric Vehicle, (FCBEV), I can build a pure BEV with the power pack and some more batteries, (when the original fit ICE is broken) and I can buy a reuseable powertrain in 20 years time!