[LVBMW]

Originally Posted by blockhead25

Do you realize there is no rationale debate that can occur when everything devolves into a conspiracy theory? Your implication is fundamentally that science does not matter any more. It is either being “pushed” or “being censored” or based on “marketing terms.” The process for peer review of scientific findings are extensive and designed to avoid conspiracy. Science contains data and facts. If a finding is released, and no one is able to collaborate that finding, it won’t be published by peer reviewed journals. However, that won’t stop it appearing as an op-Ed in the NY Post.

Once can not debate with conspiracy theorists. The entire premise of conspiracy theories is that facts ultimately do not matter.

I happen to believe in science. It is one of the foundations of my very being. Science matters. Facts matter. Research matters. I am also a believer of Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is likely the best explanation.

Either there is a mass conspiracy by some unknown group producing wind mills that has created a network of scientists who validate each others data to create thousands of peer reviewed studies on the impact of man made global warming…or it is that a bunch of research independently lead to the same conclusion and therefore is likely to be accurate.

Science and research have hard costs associated. You need labor, you need tools, you need subjects, a lot goes into it. Therefore, scientific studies are funded by many many things. There are scientific research studies funded by oil companies. There are scientific research studies funded by electric vehicle battery makers. Science is typically about proving theories, and those that are funding science research are trying to prove their own theories.

But that’s where peer review comes into play where independent scientists look at and review other data to see if it can be collaborated. It is up to us to research the sources for this material, and know what we are reading and where we are reading it. We should know the difference between an op ed article in a far right conservative newspaper and be able to understand why that might have a different conclusion to an article published in a journal requiring several levels of peer review and data collaboration before they will publish it.

Extremely well said!

[TXSTYLE]

Intriguing... 💡

[usmabmass]

Originally Posted by rdown1976

https://europe.autonews.com/article/...r-ev-batteries

Child labor and kids dying, leaving massive craters after destroying the land…..but I saved a little carbon output today (that plants and trees use). Seems logical. Great trade off.

What even is this statement. Are we really so desperate to be "anti-EV" that we're forgetting the massive destruction, exploitation, and wars that have revolved around oil production.

These weird arguments, it's like they are being made by people that started existing yesterday.

[murderspice]

The anti-EV wackos have broke containment.

Go back to your home —> https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...1#post31246391

[NYAWE60]

Originally Posted by Swiift

Sad my great grandkids will never know what a true M sounded like…

But our great grandfathers at our age didn’t even experience BMW M. As much as I hate this significant shift, we can’t do anything about it.

As much as I love the ICE M and other cars I’ve come to the point that I’ll try my best to enjoy them as long as I can (new or used) and then transition to EV. It is what it is at this point.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by eanto

the way i see it, EV is like a cheat code, reaching numbers that would be hard to reach in a gas powered car. imo it’s still cheating(not tryna call EV owners cheaters here, sorry &#128514 and cheating is still unfun for the people who still appreciate the fun of gas cars. (although, in EV there is no more $5/gallon &#128514

i’m still team GAS ALL THE WAY

Or you can look at it the other way. It takes 1200lbs of battery to equal the energy output of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. Even with that HUGE handicap, EVs perform respectably. Doesn't sound like cheating to me.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

EVs are “better”. OK, but only when looking at carbon emissions and maybe an impact on local air quality.

The issue with this argument is it’s based on the premise of CO2 being a pollutant. It’s not, therefore all the studies demonstrating how EVs are better for the planet are based on a fallacy.

I was 100% on board with buying an EV as my next daily driver, 10 years ago. Then I started educating myself. The “studies” backing this argument are being pushed, and the scientists in opposition are being censored. The “consensus” is a lie, a marketing term, a narrative designed to ruin anyone who gets in the way.

Wood stoves for heating homes are being banned, yet we’re clear cutting forests for use as “biomass” to burn for electricity (and green credentials) while the public believes it’s all industrial waste products.

Nobody wants the man behind the curtain to be exposed, but it’s too late… the secret’s out.

How about going fully anti EV and having gas powered sewing machines, hair dryers and shavers? Electric motors are fully superior in so many ways. Electric motors drive trains and many ships too.

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by rdown1976

0-60 in less than 3 seconds. Ugh, m5 cs and M8 comp can do that

What BMW Claims is always conservative and slower than real world.
For M8 competition and M5 CS they claimed 3 seconds.
I believe this one should be quicker than M8 and M5 but how much?
Probably 0.1 or 0.2 seconds…

[antzcrashing]

Y tho?

Is my first impression

But the design looks cool

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BSfmAZ

So now we r putting special Oil's in the ev's, I'm sure the coolent is somthing petroleum based also. Similar to the thousands of gal. of toxic petroleum product used in the failing windmills. So what exactly is the logic/reason behind a 1300 hp electric car?

Just please bring them to AZ for testing in the summer (110 today) not Deutschland in the winter!
V8’S forever!

Yeah, the current EV HP race reminds me of the superbike wars of the 1980's when Japan's big 3 kept building more powerful sportbikes to the point where the capabilities of the machines got ridiculous and well beyond the mere mortals who could by the product.

I bought one though...

[eanto]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Or you can look at it the other way. It takes 1200lbs of battery to equal the energy output of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. Even with that HUGE handicap, EVs perform respectably. Doesn't sound like cheating to me.

no vroom vroom tho

[somer]

Who's the market for a 200k BMW that doesn't make noise?

[NomoTesla]

Originally Posted by sikotic

About time. I can't believe it's taking them this long. It's been weird watching BMW produce electric cars that can't compete with any competition when it comes to performance. Tesla, Hyundai, Audi, Porsche, Lucid (who else am I missing) have all made fast electric cars while BMW continues to make slow ones.

I have an iX and I wouldn't call it slow, either. Not everything needs to accelerate in 3 seconds. 4.2 is enough to snap my neck and equivalent to my Model S P85 which was always too much for me. And the iX is a much bigger, SUV form factor.

[Alpine Wait]

Originally Posted by eanto

the way i see it, EV is like a cheat code, reaching numbers that would be hard to reach in a gas powered car. imo it’s still cheating(not tryna call EV owners cheaters here, sorry &#128514 and cheating is still unfun for the people who still appreciate the fun of gas cars. (although, in EV there is no more $5/gallon &#128514

i’m still team GAS ALL THE WAY

Electronic fuel injection and turbos, also cheat codes.

[clifftang996]

This is crazy

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

How about going fully anti EV and having gas powered sewing machines, hair dryers and shavers? Electric motors are fully superior in so many ways. Electric motors drive trains and many ships too.

You are absolutely 100% correct, I couldn’t agree more.

The point is, the market should drive these things, NOT politicians and activists who have either been corrupted or misled.

I am not anti EV, not at all. I am anti EV MANDATES. There’s a big difference. Mandating the adoption of a young compromised technology is foolish, especially if it’s being justified to meet some arbitrary goal that is literally not achievable and at the expense of poor people’s freedom of mobility.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by somer

Who's the market for a 200k BMW that doesn't make noise?

Oh, you're going to be surprised... This market will grow, and there's even one now, though not huge. Taycans aren't flying out the door, but give it some time, as battery tech improves, and soon they're going to start pumping in ICE engine sounds right into the cabin. And Korea is already figuring out how to fake the gear changes. So, the future is bright

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

You are absolutely 100% correct, I couldn’t agree more.

The point is, the market should drive these things, NOT politicians and activists who have either been corrupted or misled.

I am not anti EV, not at all. I am anti EV MANDATES. There’s a big difference. Mandating the adoption of a young compromised technology is foolish, especially if it’s being justified to meet some arbitrary goal that is literally not achievable and at the expense of poor people’s freedom of mobility.

Can't always wait for the market to save us from ourselves since the market is singularly focused on profit and revenue.

And don't worry about the poor people, they'll be able to buy used cars just like they do now for many years to come. Most of the working poor can't afford a new car for a myriad of reasons.

And rest assured, Korea and others are working on affordable electric cars, that will be in the range for people who don't want to or can't spend a lot of money on transportation.

But, if we are so concerned about the poor, there are a LOT of other things we could do for them right now to help them, which would be more beneficial than worrying about whether they'll be able to afford a new electric car 20 years from now.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by blockhead25

Do you realize there is no rationale debate that can occur when everything devolves into a conspiracy theory? Your implication is fundamentally that science does not matter any more. It is either being “pushed” or “being censored” or based on “marketing terms.” The process for peer review of scientific findings are extensive and designed to avoid conspiracy. Science contains data and facts. If a finding is released, and no one is able to collaborate that finding, it won’t be published by peer reviewed journals. However, that won’t stop it appearing as an op-Ed in the NY Post.

Once can not debate with conspiracy theorists. The entire premise of conspiracy theories is that facts ultimately do not matter.

I happen to believe in science. It is one of the foundations of my very being. Science matters. Facts matter. Research matters. I am also a believer of Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is likely the best explanation.

Either there is a mass conspiracy by some unknown group producing wind mills that has created a network of scientists who validate each others data to create thousands of peer reviewed studies on the impact of man made global warming…or it is that a bunch of research independently lead to the same conclusion and therefore is likely to be accurate.

Science and research have hard costs associated. You need labor, you need tools, you need subjects, a lot goes into it. Therefore, scientific studies are funded by many many things. There are scientific research studies funded by oil companies. There are scientific research studies funded by electric vehicle battery makers. Science is typically about proving theories, and those that are funding science research are trying to prove their own theories.

But that’s where peer review comes into play where independent scientists look at and review other data to see if it can be collaborated. It is up to us to research the sources for this material, and know what we are reading and where we are reading it. We should know the difference between an op ed article in a far right conservative newspaper and be able to understand why that might have a different conclusion to an article published in a journal requiring several levels of peer review and data collaboration before they will publish it.

[Mr. Jonathan]

I don’t read all 8 pages of this thread so not sure if it’s been said.

I’m alittle disappointed this new M EV development doesnt address weight reduction to set a benchmark.

[BSfmAZ]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

Oh, you're going to be surprised... This market will grow, and there's even one now, though not huge. Taycans aren't flying out the door, but give it some time, as battery tech improves, and soon they're going to start pumping in ICE engine sounds right into the cabin. And Korea is already figuring out how to fake the gear changes. So, the future is bright

Guess that's why a recent poll indicated 50% of ev owners will go back to ice engine?
V8’S forever!

Edit:
Nearly half of American owners of electric cars want to switch back to traditional cars powered by internal combustion engines, according to a consumer survey released by McKinsey and Co. earlier this month.
The consulting firm surveyed consumers in multiple countries: the U.S., China, Germany, Norway, Australia, France, Italy, Japan and Brazil. Between all of those countries, 29% of electric car owners want to return to driving internal combustion cars, with 46% of surveyed American electric car owners wanting to do so.
This surprised the consulting firm, cutting against received wisdom about people’s switch to electric. “I didn’t expect that. I thought, ’Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer,’” Philipp Kampshoff, the leader of the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility, told Automotive News.
Among the owners surveyed who are planning to switch back, 35% cited the lack of charging infrastructure, 34% said the costs were too high, 32% said planning long driving trips was too difficult, 24% said they could not currently charge at home, 21% said worrying about charging was too stressful and 13% said they did not enjoy how the cars felt while driving.
Only 9% of drivers across all countries surveyed said that current charging infrastructure was sufficient to meet their needs. While some electric car drivers want to switch back, 38% of internal combustion car drivers surveyed said they are considering buying a battery-powered or plug-in hybrid electric car as their next vehicle.
From 2021 through 2024, just over a fifth of internal combustion car drivers surveyed worldwide by McKinsey said they will not switch to an electric car ever. Some other drivers are planning to keep buying internal combustion cars for now and switch to electric at some point in the future.

[rdown1976]

Drill baby drill!!!