My first day commuting in my new Rex

So today was my first commute in the i3 Rex. I decided to drive it the same way I drove my ICE vehicle which turned out to be a bad idea...heh. My commute is 41 miles each way which gives me a total of 82 miles round trip. The ride in was great. The outside temp was 65 and I ran ~75-80mph in comfort mode with the radio going and AC on 74. I got to work with just under 2 bars and 35 miles remaining.

The way home was a different story. It was 95 degrees and when I pressed "start," the range dropped from 38 miles to 18. I thought hmmm...I guess we shall test the Rex on the first day! I then bumped the AC up to 76, turned off the radio, hit the "Eco Pro" button, headed home.
After two miles of conservative driving, the 18 miles went back up to 22 and I thought "heh...I got this."

Then I hit the 70mph main road out of town. I set the cruise for 75 and waited to hear the Rex kick in....and waited, and waited.
Eventually I noticed the gas gauge had lost a bit of a bar. The rex had kicked in and I never noticed. There were no notifications on any of the panels and I couldn't hear it over the AC and road noise. I smiled and again thought "I got this."

My smile was to be short lived. Suddenly I noticed that it was harder to pass the car in the left lane than it was a few seconds ago. My energy meter had shrunk! within less than 2 miles I went from easily driving 75-80 to struggling to stay above 55. The next to go was the AC. The air was blowing but it wasn't cold. This was on flat oklahoma ground mind you. There are pretty much zero hills on my route.
About the time I was beginning to panic, I reached my exit. Once off the freeway and down to the 30-40mph range, the energy meter began to fill back up and the AC again began to blow cold. After I got home, the fans continued to run for another 10-15 minutes cooling everything off.

Lesson learned.

While this is a pretty awesome vehicle, it's not something I can just get in and drive. I will have to make some adjustments but thats ok. Driving 80 to work doesn't save much time over 70. I don't actually NEED to floor the gas when I leave a stoplight and honestly, as relaxing as the i3 is to drive, I just might begin to enjoy my commute. We shall see.

I'm very interesting in hearing stories of owners driving with the range extender on so thanks for the post. I got my REx almost 2 weeks ago and really wanted to see first hand how the extender would handle my commute (18 miles each direction, mostly freeway). Over the past few days I purposely didn't charge and today I set out on my commute with guess-o-meter saying I had a 5 mile range (Eco Pro, AC at 72, Radio on). Very soon after leaving I noticed the engine turned on and for the next several minutes I drove very conservatively knowing the engine has a 6 minute warm-up time. Soon I was on the freeway and I drove 70 mph for about 14 miles without a problem. A couple of times I passed other vehicles accelerating between 75-80 without a problem. Honestly the car felt exactly the same as it did with the engine off. Once on the off-ramp near my work the engine shut off when I stopped and only only briefly came on again as I was approaching my office. Once I parked the battery meter was several ticks to the right of little triangle showing that I actually gained battery level during the drive. My ride home was equally satisfying as I had zero issues driving how I wanted to drive.

Overall I was very happy knowing the REx will have no problems during my commute using the ICE.

I also have a 41 mile (one way) commute, but with significant hills. After my 25MPH limp disaster a couple of days ago (not on my commute, thank God), I am learning to be more attentive during REX driving. On the way home, I know I need to average around 70MPH to maintain a full SOC buffer, which I need to maintain that speed on the mild grades I need to climb near the end of my return trip.

I am pretty sure I could make the round trip on battery if I drove 65MPH (although I haven't tried). I prefer to drive "normally" (for me) for as long as possible, even if I have to keep an eye on the "little white arrow" once in REX mode.

It would be nice if the car would give a warning when you have used, say, 2/3 of your SOC buffer so you could reduce speed a bunch and try to let it "catch up."

Of course, the real solution is to allow for a larger buffer, which would solve the problem for almost everyone.

I get the feeling that the default SOC buffer was tuned to be good enough for 90% of folks, 90% of the time. But the combination of my local topography and my driving habits put me in the 10% it seems. If I wanted to be a hyper-miler, I would have gotten a Prius or a Leaf (no offense to those owners). I expect a BMW to drive like a BMW, to the extent possible. Full performance climbing a 7000 foot mountain will never be possible (nor will sustained 90MPH cruise control on REX), but everything I want from the car could be enabled with a software tweak (might even be a parameter that can be changed via OBD-II port)

Anyone who thinks i3 or any EV can be driven same as ICE is deluded.

EV drivers have to compromise seems even more with REX restriction in USA.

Who imposed this for USA local laws?

uktechie said:

Who imposed this for USA local laws?

Click to expand...

This question is the crux of why people are not happy. It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the law. BMW chose to do this in order to qualify for government incentives. This is purely to benefit BMW's bottom line.

RJBarry said:

It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the law. BMW chose to do this in order to qualify for government incentives. This is purely to benefit BMW's bottom line.

Click to expand...

Well, that kinda depends on you perspective. BMW seemed to be committed to getting their maximum BEVx credits, which required them to comply with CARB regs. But, in BMW's defense, the CARB people were capricious and unreasonable in not allowing BMW to address "edge cases" via a Mountain Mode. Who is to blame? Hard to say.

I think the Euro spec REX fulfills the spirit and substance of what CARB reasonably wanted to achieve with the BEVx category. I think it is terrible public policy for CARB to require de-featuring based on slavish adherence to overly-broad philosophical positions.

I do not object to the concept that EV range must be >= ICE range, but an allowance for edge cases that logically will not result in fewer EV miles does not weaken any reasonable policy objective. The only plausible explanation (other than misguided ECO delusion) is the game-theoretic notion that car companies and the CARB are repeat players and CARB must draw firm bright lines to preserve ability to make credible threats in the future even when such threats are irrational. In other words, bending the rules (even if clearly for the greater good in this one case) could create the expectation that ALL future rules can be bent.

RJBarry said:

uktechie said:

Who imposed this for USA local laws?

Click to expand...

This question is the crux of why people are not happy. It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the law. BMW chose to do this in order to qualify for government incentives. This is purely to benefit BMW's bottom line.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree 110%!!!

Chrisn said:

RJBarry said:

It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the law. BMW chose to do this in order to qualify for government incentives. This is purely to benefit BMW's bottom line.

Click to expand...

Well, that kinda depends on you perspective. BMW seemed to be committed to getting their maximum BEVx credits, which required them to comply with CARB regs. But, in BMW's defense, the CARB people were capricious and unreasonable in not allowing BMW to address "edge cases" via a Mountain Mode. Who is to blame? Hard to say.

I think the Euro spec REX fulfills the spirit and substance of what CARB reasonably wanted to achieve with the BEVx category. I think it is terrible public policy for CARB to require de-featuring based on slavish adherence to overly-broad philosophical positions.

I do not object to the concept that EV range must be >= ICE range, but an allowance for edge cases that logically will not result in fewer EV miles does not weaken any reasonable policy objective. The only plausible explanation (other than misguided ECO delusion) is the game-theoretic notion that car companies and the CARB are repeat players and CARB must draw firm bright lines to preserve ability to make credible threats in the future even when such threats are irrational. In other words, bending the rules (even if clearly for the greater good in this one case) could create the expectation that ALL future rules can be bent.

Click to expand...

BMW is still to blame, they could have accepted the reality of a PHEV rating and less CARB dollar credits. BMW's greed for CARB credits is to blame!!! BIG TIME!

Chrisn said:

RJBarry said:

It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the law. BMW chose to do this in order to qualify for government incentives. This is purely to benefit BMW's bottom line.

Well, that kinda depends on you perspective. BMW seemed to be committed to getting their maximum BEVx credits, which required them to comply with CARB regs. But, in BMW's defense, the CARB people were capricious and unreasonable in not allowing BMW to address "edge cases" via a Mountain Mode. Who is to blame? Hard to say.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FWIW, I'll chime in with my perspective on corporate "greed" and finance. For me, after nearly 30 years of high-performance 5 series and Federal Gas Guzzler taxation, I figure the $7,500 federal tax credit and the NYS $2,500 tax credit for electric fixture installation at home, will help me begin to recoup those expenditures.

As for CARB, I read, perhaps in one of Tom M's articles that CARB was chastened in terms of gasoline limitations. Too bad for them; bureaucrats are just that--not automotive engineers who must SELL their product. Where my disgust with CARB comes into play is by NYS's adoption of CARB rules. We don't have CAL's air and auto density, but we do have "me too" politicians and regulators, and it is they who infuriate me.

I suspect BMW had to draw the planning/production line at some point and thus, went with the convoluted CARB rules. Further I expect they will work around them in the future and I simply hope that the workarounds are retrofittable.

As for federal CAFE standards, again, I figure I have been running on the backs of 4 cyl models for some time, as BMW hit fast-5 owners with more guzzler tax than 7 series owners. Now, I am contributing to the equation to keep my BMWCCA members in fast company, but I am enjoying it too.

In sum, I disagree with lawyerly threats expressed elsewhere here. It's easy to scream "greed" and more difficult to understand corporate culture and legal maneuvering/lobbying in the shadow of safety and eco regulation. I think BMW is trying to do its best even if they are erring on the green side--and I trust that leaning will come back to them in positive "karma" in future negotiations.

Greed , greed , greed , it is all about money vs capability for customers. PHEV status would still qualify for the green HOV stickers.

mindmachine said:

Greed , greed , greed , it is all about money vs capability for customers. PHEV status would still qualify for the green HOV stickers.

Click to expand...

Lord...your point has been made, and made, and made. Either start the lawsuit, sell the car, or live with it.

The constant rants about "greed" is worth NOTHING

+1

Or at least try and keep it to one thread on one forum.