RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review
Discussion
People who want to spend £100k on a super saloon generally don't care about carbon footprint. They might in the sense it purveys an image about themselves but not the reality of it. Hence 'who cares'.
As for weight/dimensions, that does matter because excess of either means more emissions and use of physical resources than necessary.
If we *really* cared about the planetary issue or our immediate environment we'd be limited to cars only as large and powerful as absolutely necessary to do the job effectively.
Arguing about the environmental nicities of a huge and unnecessary super saloon is the definition of nonsense.
As for weight/dimensions, that does matter because excess of either means more emissions and use of physical resources than necessary.
If we *really* cared about the planetary issue or our immediate environment we'd be limited to cars only as large and powerful as absolutely necessary to do the job effectively.
Arguing about the environmental nicities of a huge and unnecessary super saloon is the definition of nonsense.
Forester1965 said:
If we *really* cared about the planetary issue or our immediate environment we'd be limited to cars only as large and powerful as absolutely necessary to do the job effectively.
This is very true if the car has an engine and burns fuel.With a battery, that is sized for range, the extra performance is close to being environmentally 'free'.
Electrification offers up some amazing opportunities to keep using new cars and performance cars in the way we want.
For renewably powered cars, speed, rapid acceleration now and then and distance covered no longer have an impact.
I realise that's such revolutionary concept, it takes some time to get one's head around it.
In any case, the length and weight of the car, during high speed cruise, has very little impact regardless of the powertrain.
I'm not denying that size and weight of the car have some impact, it's the pathological avoidance of accepting that the size and weight of the lifetime fuel burden is what is actually killing our hobby.
Instead, we fixate on kerb mass and deny all else.
Nobody wins by burying our heads in the sand.
We really need to stop seeing electrification as a threat and start seeing it as an opportunity.
The type of powertrain doesn't get to dictate physics. Relatively speaking it still takes more energy to move and stop a 2.5t object than a 1.5t one. You need to use more finite natural resources to make a physically larger product. It needs sturdier crash protection because it carries more kinetic energy. Bigger wheels and tyres. And so on.
The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
It's the 'needs to be' bit I'm having trouble with.
Maybe that's because I'm looking at the design process from the input end rather than the output end.
It feels disingenuous to keep pointing fingers at 'them' rather the us, the consumers.
Also, regarding physics, energy efficiency plays as crucial a role as the core equations of motion.
Waste heat being 'the enemy'.
Maybe that's because I'm looking at the design process from the input end rather than the output end.
It feels disingenuous to keep pointing fingers at 'them' rather the us, the consumers.
Also, regarding physics, energy efficiency plays as crucial a role as the core equations of motion.
Waste heat being 'the enemy'.
SmithCorona said:
Your flogging a dead horse, chap. No one buying an M5 is looking at lifetime carbon emissions.
>ERROR!>CANNOT_COMPUTE
>CO2_CALCULATIONS_DICTATE_SOLUTION
>SOLUTION_MATCHES_EXAMPLE_COMMUTER_TRANSPORT_USE_CASE
>SUBJECTIVE_CONCERNS_IRRELEVANT
>HUMAN_FACTORS_IRRELEVANT
>ALL_MOTORISTS_MUST_COMPLY!!!
SmithCorona said:
Your flogging a dead horse, chap. No one buying an M5 is looking at lifetime carbon emissions.
We've established that.Can we also stop flogging the kerb weight horse then, because that's also got nothing to do with anything related to new cars.
Edited by GT9 on Monday 1st July 14:51
Forester1965 said:
The type of powertrain doesn't get to dictate physics. Relatively speaking it still takes more energy to move and stop a 2.5t object than a 1.5t one. You need to use more finite natural resources to make a physically larger product. It needs sturdier crash protection because it carries more kinetic energy. Bigger wheels and tyres. And so on.
The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
You're right. The forthcoming Labour government should put a 100% tax on heavy cars. This new M5 would therefore be double the current price. The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
The extra tax money should go towards making leases of electric mopeds more affordable for the average Brit.
raspy said:
Forester1965 said:
The type of powertrain doesn't get to dictate physics. Relatively speaking it still takes more energy to move and stop a 2.5t object than a 1.5t one. You need to use more finite natural resources to make a physically larger product. It needs sturdier crash protection because it carries more kinetic energy. Bigger wheels and tyres. And so on.
The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
You're right. The forthcoming Labour government should put a 100% tax on heavy cars. This new M5 would therefore be double the current price. The future is very much electric and I long for the days where clean energy can power the mass-market of private vehicles. So much better in lots of ways.
None of this means we should accept overly large or heavy vehicles, though. In the context of sustainability there's nothing inherently good in making something larger or heavier than it needs to be.
The extra tax money should go towards making leases of electric mopeds more affordable for the average Brit.
chilled901 said:
The big chungus weighs more than full sized SUV and people are out here trying defend this abomination.
I’m currently in Iowa and there are plenty of bigger and heavier vehicles including the Chevy my Daughter has.Personally I wouldn’t touch a hybrid or a 5 series but nobody is forcing you to buy one. The sales numbers will determine whether BMW have calculated accurately.
“The market will decide” is a valid argument.
However as much as I am a fan of freedom of choice the fact is BMW are a hugely respected car manufacturer.
Where they lead others follow.
The fact that your average mid level executive car is actually good to drive is because BMW staked their claim to the ‘Ultimate Driving Machine’ tag & built cars that were hugely competent and fun to drive.
The M models were always the halo cars of this policy.
They have abandoned this, and have, since the introduction of the G generation of cars started to pursue tech rather than driver enjoyment.
This may be all well & good & the market will decide etc etc but when in 10 years time your mid level car is 2.5T and essentially a glorified mobile phone on wheels which is dull as dishwater to drive it will be in part because BMW led the way.
I stopped buying BMW after my last F10 5 Series because I felt their product wasn’t what I considered to be a BMW. I may be wrong.
I just think that a company as clever and as influential as BMW should be / could be making cars that are fun, green, light & competent.
The i3 & i8 were the false dawn of a great future.
This is the opposite of those cars ethos.
However as much as I am a fan of freedom of choice the fact is BMW are a hugely respected car manufacturer.
Where they lead others follow.
The fact that your average mid level executive car is actually good to drive is because BMW staked their claim to the ‘Ultimate Driving Machine’ tag & built cars that were hugely competent and fun to drive.
The M models were always the halo cars of this policy.
They have abandoned this, and have, since the introduction of the G generation of cars started to pursue tech rather than driver enjoyment.
This may be all well & good & the market will decide etc etc but when in 10 years time your mid level car is 2.5T and essentially a glorified mobile phone on wheels which is dull as dishwater to drive it will be in part because BMW led the way.
I stopped buying BMW after my last F10 5 Series because I felt their product wasn’t what I considered to be a BMW. I may be wrong.
I just think that a company as clever and as influential as BMW should be / could be making cars that are fun, green, light & competent.
The i3 & i8 were the false dawn of a great future.
This is the opposite of those cars ethos.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff