Yes we do. We bake cakes all the time

 

I live in Canada not Scotland.

I rest my case

 

look at the "load" to provide the feature. Some simple logic statement. Is the car at rest in neutral with the clutch pedal up? If so, stop engine.

Now, the calculations to fire your spark plugs are much more complicated, done much more often, and for most people, done perfectly over the life of the car. The combined starter/alternator acutally eliminates one system by combining the functions of two into one, so it's less complex a mechanical system overall, (even though it's use is driven by software). And this will, in a use case limited way, deliver some significant savings in fuel use for cars at long rests (like the lights in Vegas).

Now, while all the "I don't like this added complexity" crowd fires off on how this is just dumb and they know how to start stop the motor themselves, they ignore two simple things.....
1) Take this to it's absurd end and you'd still be driving a buggy with a crank and a wood lever that presses a leather pad onto your rim, or a horse!
2) Most of the benefits that we're growing to love about the very cars we're driving now have been brought about by the very same trends in technology that are now being bashed. Fuel injection makes our cars scream, and was introduced to meet smog laws! Some of the body control function (one I really like is the first tug on the handle unlocking the door, the second opening it) are all done via computer and solenoids etc. More of the stuff we could do, but didn't because it was either a hassle or the equipment wasn't made for it (like traditional starter technology).

Is there any real good reason why this feature shouldn't be on cars? (And eventually it will come here... Right now the car company gets no fed "credit" for this kind of feature because it doesn't effect how the EPA rates car emissions. When they do, it will be here, or as soon as they percieve it's a green marketing plus...) Other than "I liked it the way it was before just fine" I can't really see any. Marginal increase in CPU load. More evolved combined single system replaces two conventional systems. Overall imrovement in real world fuel consumption. The only risk I really see here is the new combined starter/alternator.... But then, the hybrid world has been the guinnea pigs for this kind of the tech for quite a while, so the risk is smaller than one would first think.

Matt

 

I have had dealings with many canadians. They "Aboot" all over the place, eh?

 

It's not a matter of being more or less complex. As I said, MINI couldn't solve a rattle in a glove box before production, or even months after it. To date, they are still unable to sell touch-up paint for the new colors. It's not about technology; it's about how MINI does things that worries me. I happen to find the 2-step door unlock to be a pain. But, at least I can still drive if it doesn't work. Moreover, if the auto start/stop fails, MINI would no doubt blame it on the fact that I put Lamin-X on my tail lights. For me, the concern is about MINI itself, not the technology.

 

but really, what's happening is comparisons of what we currently have to each of our concepts of perfection. This is a comparison that will always have what we have now, or that's being introduced, left lacking. The fact that Mini sucks in some of it's customer support funcitons is pretty typical in todays corporate climates. Who else is better?

I guess I just look at it differently. I see the march of technology as a good thing at best, a nescissary evil at worst. The question isn't will the technology change, but how will be embrase or evolve based on the changes that come about.

While your concerns about Mini are valid, I think this is the first post in this thread that expresses worry over how the company works , as opposed to how the technology was introducted. Really, if we all wait till there's no risk, progress never happens. If we act when risks are too large, progress happens, but very messily with lots of collateral damage. If we act when risks are managable, then we have technology improvemenst, with the accompanying chorus of screems in the internet that the proverbial cheese have been moved, once again!

But then, the very same technology introdcutons were done with variabel valve lift on the new cooper motor, direct injection and the like. I didn't really hear the chorus of complaints over those features, even though the obsolete some technologies and hardware (and methods) that we all were comfortable with before. So I have to wonder, if direct injection is good (that didn't get the compaints that auto start stop do), why isn't auto start stop? If auto start stop is bad because it's a change over what we all could do just fine before, why is direct injection better than multi port injection that's better than throttle body that's better than carbs?

Seems to me that the complaints are becuase it's just a perception that the driver is loosing even more control to computers. I think this position misses the point, as it's not as invasive as many think, and most who complain don't address the potential benefits, and just biatch about the never ending removal of the human control factor in our day to day lives. I don't agree with any of these positions.

Matt

 

None of this covers my concerns. I love new technology and am all for finding better ways. My personal concern stems from the fact that (1) while I do appreciate good gas mileage, I don't crave it above all else, coupled with my concern that (2) the damn car won't start like it's supposed to and (3) MINI won't be all that concerned about it. All three of those factors taken together inform my negative view about it. Your suggestion that I don't buy a MINI is a tad late, but I won't buy a MINI with auto start/stop, at least until I am confident they got it right.

 

as every new car has some new technology in it, and most of that technology was tried out in other applications and the like. While you have a perfectly fine standard for accepting technology, you forget that it's not really BMW that is the provider of these technologies to the end user. It's the sub-assembly supplier. I'm not sure who make the actual hybrid alternator/starter, but you can bet it's integration into engine management was done either by Bosch or Seimens.... You're really questioning the ability of BMW/Mini to successfully integrate sub-assemblies into the cars we buy.

But for all us in the US, we won't have the option, at least for a while. Those with the same technology acceptance standard that live here will have nothing to worry about, the rest of the world will be the beta testers!

But it's also interesting that we all have different metrics for technology accpetance. I've lived, learned and worked in the high tech world of physics reaserch, insturmentation developement, and the semiconductor industry for a pretty long time, so I guess I'm a lot less technology adverse than many. I wonder if there were more data (like expeded odometer increase to the average engine failure, system complexity increase or decrease with the change and technology etc) then it would counter the natural tendency to not trust the early results of change.....

Matt

 

offer it as an option...that's what mini is about. If you want it then get it.

 

in the EU, they estimate emissions for cars differently, and a reduction in CO2 at idle gets the cars cleaner in a way that shows up in the CO2/km spec that used in europe but not here. Because the EPA driving cycle doesn't give any benefit for better idling (think of the test, the engine is off, no CO2, no NOx, no unburned hydrocarbons!), the won't bring it here at all. Since they will have to do it for the EU cars, the parts will be there, I guess an option would work for the period of time between now and when the EPA changes so theres a benefit to BMW/Mini to do it. I'll see if I can get in touch with some little birdies to wisper the option hint into some ears.... I'm just a peon, so don't hold your breath!

Matt

ps, I thought of two possible barriers to offering it as an option.
1) if they have to certify the engines with the options separately for fed approval, that's very, very expensive.
2) If the infrastructure costs (training the NA staff how to deal with it, the cost of populating the supply chain, the extra BMW/Mini tools that would have to go to service areas etc) are too high for the anticipated number of sales then it costs them a lot of money to offer the option.

 

Excellent article, when is the diesel mini coming to the U.S.

 

read the interview with Stroccio (I think that's his name) on Motoringfile.com.

All the emmissions stuff for diesels to be sold in all 50 states needs a larger car. It's not small, or light, so for smaller lighter cars there isn't the room, and the hit to performance is high....

Matt

ps, bummer. I would buy a performance deisel in a heartbeat if they were available here!

 

MINI already gave those of us that have air and 6 speed an auto off at stoplights. Just try comming off the clutch under 2,000rpm and you will experience the auto off feature your MINI has built in!

 

I don't see what's so amusing. There are posts galore in NAM concerning people not getting options that have existed for decades because they "are just another thing that can break." That's amusing. Here, we are talking about something that can leave you stranded. Perhaps your love for new technology compels you to desire the system despite that likely event. But, certainly, my concern is valid and not the least amusing.

 

I guess the view from here is different!

But really, what do most of us know about the evolution of the technology, it's relative complexity relative to what's there now, or anything about failure rates. So it seems that there isn't enough information to make an informed decision. True, this in effect is just an increase in risk, but it's a correctable increase in risk...

To me, start stop isn't new, it's been in every hybrid since day one, useing the same type of system (just capable of much, much higher electrical drive torques). To me, this is the little cousin of things that have been in production since the Honda Insight! While the tech is new to Mini, it's far from new.

One other comment. This is one less thing that can break, as the alternator and the starter should be replaced with a single unit!

Matt

 

where have you learned that it's likely to be stranded if you have a car with this feature. Just from the perspective of arguement constructions, you've played fast and loose. You slid in the "likely" comment that you'll be stranded to support the position that there's increased risk, yet there is no data to support the claim. This is circular logic and independant of the argument material. It isn't a way to make a point, as it's an indefensable position consturction.

I actuall thought I was pretty open minded to differing risk metrics, and even admitted as much in a previous post. But you've moved my comments further to the area where I must be embracing tech change just for the sake of change. Far from it:

• I'm the only that pointed out the car could actually be a less complex system.
• I'm the only one that pointed out the technology has been around for almost a decade (don't remember when the InSight came out).
• I'm the only one that pointed out that the addition of the tech (with the added risk) also reduced wear in other items in our cars.

It's OK that we have different standards about when we'll embrace new tech. That's all fine and good. But please don't twist my positions. We can agree to disagree on things just fine without misrepresenting each other.

Matt