Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GRA said:
BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them.

I'm not sure that this is true. EVs are almost past that.

Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars. Sure, not for everyone. A large niche.

The battery cost keeps falling... There is a market for a low end car as well. A city range car like a Leaf isn't much more expensive to manufacture than a gasoline car. More convenient, less maintenance, lower cost fuel, more reliable and generally nicer to drive. Sure, not for everyone. A larger niche. Even without the subsidies, I think would survive.

The battery cost keeps falling. The top end expands down, the low end expands up. Sure, EV market share is only growing at 30% or so a year. Be another 3 or 4 years before tops 2% of the market. Perhaps twice as long with end of subsidies.

I do see a reason to spend some money on developing FCEVs. Not for automotive use, but for light aviation. Develop in cars as is better development platform.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them.

I'm not sure that this is true..

With somebody who spends as much time pimping for hydrogen while taking cheap shots at EVs as GRA does, he *has* to make statements like this.

Why? Because hydrogen cars and hydrogen infrastructure will be on the government teet for a VERY long time. The pie-in-the-sky hydrogen projections from the past 30 years will continue for the next 30 years. Always right around the corner, if only more government cash were thrown at it.

Frankly, hydrogen will not likely be a cost effective platform compared to EVs in my life time (using a non-subsidized cost model, not price to the consumer).

That singular hydrogen advantage of faster refueling time will erode over time. Hydrogen refueling isn't likely to increase in speed at the current 10,000psi / 700 bar method at -25C temperature. It could be a few minutes, or 10-15 minutes to add hundreds of miles of range, based on current infrastructure.

Future EVs are on track to charge at over 300kW, adding 5kWh every minute (15-20 miles per minute) which could be 100 miles added in 5-10 minutes, at least at a low state of charge.

It's not too difficult to see who wins.
 
WetEV said:
Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars.

Where're the data to support this? Given the price point that Tesla sells the S/X and their volumes, there's no
possible profitability when R&D, GA & Sales are considered. In the long term Tesla can't survive without a high
volume vehicle, e.g. Model E, to amortize fixed costs and to obtain lower parts costs for the higher end vehicles.
 
lorenfb said:
WetEV said:
Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars.

Where're the data to support this? Given the price point that Tesla sells the S/X and their volumes, there's no
possible profitability when R&D, GA & Sales are considered.

Data is from Tesla's financial reports. Read them carefully.

Tesla's R&D is excessive because of Tesla's strategy.
So is a large fraction of GA.

Price point would need to go up, but not very far. Volume might drop, but not by much. People buying $120k cars are not very price sensitive. Or the battery cost could come down, which is happening even without the Gigafactory.

Assuming, of course, that some other car company doesn't want to buy this market by producing a similar car and undercutting Tesla on price. Or, for that matter, just doing a hostile takeover, as the stock price of such a car company would be rather lower than Tesla's.

From the point of view of electric cars, Audi/Porche/Maserati/Jaguar/Aston Martin/Mercedes-Benz/Ferrari/Bentley or someone else might take over the high end electric car leadership, and the market niche would remain. Technology based niche, not "Tesla" name based. The technology can be copied.

As you can guess, I'm not a Tesla stockholder. While the Tesla S cars are great, companies selling expensive ICE cars are taking notice and will copy the best parts of Tesla's cars. Tesla's Model 3 strategy depends on things like the Bolt, Leaf 2 and similar all being disasters, or focused too far down market. Tesla's survival with this strategy depends on winning all the battles and the war as well. Any loss could be fatal to the company. Any costly victory could be fatal. But high end electric cars are here to stay.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them.

I'm not sure that this is true. EVs are almost past that.

Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars. Sure, not for everyone. A large niche.

The battery cost keeps falling... There is a market for a low end car as well. A city range car like a Leaf isn't much more expensive to manufacture than a gasoline car. More convenient, less maintenance, lower cost fuel, more reliable and generally nicer to drive. Sure, not for everyone. A larger niche. Even without the subsidies, I think would survive.

The battery cost keeps falling. The top end expands down, the low end expands up. Sure, EV market share is only growing at 30% or so a year. Be another 3 or 4 years before tops 2% of the market. Perhaps twice as long with end of subsidies.

I do see a reason to spend some money on developing FCEVs. Not for automotive use, but for light aviation. Develop in cars as is better development platform.
Tesla Model S/X are the only BEVs that there's little doubt could survive without subsidies, but as they're luxury products where value for money is measured in entirely different units, that has little bearing on mass market viability. While I'm personally in favor of eliminating all subsidies now, if ever there was no excuse for subsidizing AFVs, Tesla and similarly priced cars provide it. We all hope that BEVs will reach the point where they will be profitable without subsidies, and acceptable to the mass market. Maybe the Bolt will be it, but I also believe that there's room for much less expensive, local BEVs. More range than the 1st gen. cars, but they don't need 200+ miles. Whether that point is at 125 or 150 miles AER, and $15/$20/$25k remains to be seen. The Ionic BEV's a step in the right direction, though I expect PHEVs like the Prime will be more successful. Ideally, Hyundai would price the PHEV Ionic similarly to the BEv version, so they can go head to head.

I do think FCEVs will find a definite niche in long-haul trucking and motor coaches, maybe general aviation and commuter/regional airliners, and possibly CHP home units. As to their viability for LDVs, it's solely a matter of cost (for them, the fuel and the fueling infrastructure) - they've already got the performance characteristics to replace ICEs for general use. Whether BEVs develop to that point more rapidly than FCEVs get their costs down remains the big unknown.
 
Well, gentlemen, you've once again sucked me into an another round of the endless repeated arguments on FCEVS and BEVs, where no one has anything new to say but just regurgitates the same points for the umpteenth time. I've managed to mostly avoid doing so in the FCEV and H2 thread, but somehow let my guard down in this thread, which should be specific to the Mirai. In any case, this particular round ends here, at least as far as my participation in it goes, and will limit myself to Mirai announcements and discussion.
 
TonyWilliams said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them.

I'm not sure that this is true..

With somebody who spends as much time pimping for hydrogen while taking cheap shots at EVs as GRA does, he *has* to make statements like this. <snip>
Tony, 'pimping' implies that I benefit in some way, financially or otherwise. I have no financial interests in FCEVs (or BEVs, PHEVs, ICEs, electricity/fossil/H2 providers or any company involved with them, beyond possibly some mutual funds where I'm unaware of what stocks they hold), nor do I particularly care which ZEV tech(s) succeed. So how am I 'pimping'? If either of us has a direct financial interest in the success of one of the techs, it's not me. You can't say the same, as you have a business that caters to PEVs. So, let's not be throwing around terms like 'pimping', unless you can provide some evidence backing that up.

Oh, and how is pointing out that BEVs still require and receive subsidies a cheap shot? It's a fact, no more or less. As I've said many times, I'd prefer to see all AFV subsidies removed, now.
 
GRA said:
TonyWilliams said:
WetEV said:
I'm not sure that this is true..

With somebody who spends as much time pimping for hydrogen while taking cheap shots at EVs as GRA does, he *has* to make statements like this. <snip>
Tony, 'pimping' implies that I benefit in some way, financially or otherwise. I have no financial interests in FCEVs (or BEVs, PHEVs, ICEs, electricity/fossil/H2 providers or any company involved with them, beyond possibly some mutual funds where I'm unaware of what stocks they hold), nor do I particularly care which ZEV tech(s) succeed. So how am I 'pimping'? .
Ego?
 
WetEV said:
Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars.

lorenfb said:
Where're the data to support this? Given the price point that Tesla sells the S/X and their volumes, there's no
possible profitability when R&D, GA & Sales are considered.

WetEV said:
Tesla's R&D is excessive because of Tesla's strategy.
So is a large fraction of GA.

Yes, all companies require some form of ongoing R&D & GA to sustain a market position, but Tesla is presently
unprofitable and will continue to be so without a volume vehicle. Those costs will not be significantly reduced
at Tesla's present sales growth rate. Even with massive ZEV credits, Tesla is not profitable.

WetEV said:
Price point would need to go up, but not very far. Volume might drop, but not by much. People buying $120k cars are not very price sensitive. Or the battery cost could come down, which is happening even without the Gigafactory.

That's your guess!

WetEV said:
Assuming, of course, that some other car company doesn't want to buy this market by producing a similar car and undercutting Tesla on price. Or, for that matter, just doing a hostile takeover, as the stock price of such a car company would be rather lower than Tesla's.

Why would any company wish to takeover Tesla? There's no key "rent", technology, or barrier to entry that makes
Tesla a desirable asset. Their only real ecosystem are the SCs. Besides, the cost to replicate the SCs would not
be burdensome for any of the major automotive OEMs.

WetEV said:
From the point of view of electric cars, Audi/Porche/Maserati/Jaguar/Aston Martin/Mercedes-Benz/Ferrari/Bentley or someone else might take over the high end electric car leadership, and the market niche would remain. Technology based niche, not "Tesla" name based. The technology can be copied.

Right, Tesla has no key market protection!

WetEV said:
The Model 3 strategy depends on things like the Bolt, Leaf 2 and similar all being disasters, or focused too far down market. Tesla's survival with this strategy depends on winning all the battles and the war as well.

That's a naive market strategy, i.e. hoping/planning that all the competition failures will be the only reason for your success.
 
Tesla is profitable now. And has been for some time now.
Every single car they sell makes a lot of money - this is called profit.
The fact that all profit is used up for expansion doesn't make a company unprofitable.
Even if more than 100% of profits is used for expansion.
 
GRA said:
Tesla Model S/X are the only BEVs that there's little doubt could survive without subsidies, but as they're luxury products where value for money is measured in entirely different units, that has little bearing on mass market viability. While I'm personally in favor of eliminating all subsidies now, if ever there was no excuse for subsidizing AFVs, Tesla and similarly priced cars provide it. We all hope that BEVs will reach the point where they will be profitable without subsidies, and acceptable to the mass market.

"Mass market" doesn't happen overnight. While sales would clearly decline for Leafs and similar BEVs if subsidies were to end, these cars are cheaper now without subsidies than they were at first with subsidies. Think about that.

You want a revolution. I'm happy with evolution.

Tesla owns one niche, and while Tesla might or might not survive, and might lose part or even all of this niche in the future, the luxury performance BEV niche will survive.

GRA said:
I also believe that there's room for much less expensive, local BEVs.

The niche of BEV commuting doesn't require more range than 1st gen. cars. More range will expand the niche, sure. Lower price will help more, getting parity on selling price with similar commuting ICE cars will help, likely future bounces in gasoline price will help, and so on. Sure, commuting niche currently mostly limited to people with garages/carports/off street parking that can do home charging, and also mostly limited to second car slot. Might expand if solar makes daylight electric power very cheap , leading to more workplace charging. Might expand as batteries get cheaper and more energy dense.

PEHV can compete for the first car slot. So can longer range BEVs like the Bolt.

Grab a niche or two, own them and expand them.

I don't see a niche for FCEVs outside of general aviation and maybe commuter airliners. Too expensive for trucking, buses and general cars. Not high performance. Fueling stations too expensive for rural uses, where faster refueling would matter.
 
lorenfb said:
Yes, all companies require some form of ongoing R&D & GA to sustain a market position, but Tesla is presently
unprofitable and will continue to be so without a volume vehicle.

Tesla is not trying to just sustain a market position, they are trying to become the next Ford or GM.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Tesla Model S/X are the only BEVs that there's little doubt could survive without subsidies, but as they're luxury products where value for money is measured in entirely different units, that has little bearing on mass market viability. While I'm personally in favor of eliminating all subsidies now, if ever there was no excuse for subsidizing AFVs, Tesla and similarly priced cars provide it. We all hope that BEVs will reach the point where they will be profitable without subsidies, and acceptable to the mass market.
"Mass market" doesn't happen overnight. While sales would clearly decline for Leafs and similar BEVs if subsidies were to end, these cars are cheaper now without subsidies than they were at first with subsidies. Think about that. <snip>
As I'm trying to get this topic back to Mirai-specific posts and your points cover a range of issues, I've replied to you via pmail.
 
Firetruck41 said:
GRA said:
TonyWilliams said:
With somebody who spends as much time pimping for hydrogen while taking cheap shots at EVs as GRA does, he *has* to make statements like this. <snip>
Tony, 'pimping' implies that I benefit in some way, financially or otherwise. I have no financial interests in FCEVs (or BEVs, PHEVs, ICEs, electricity/fossil/H2 providers or any company involved with them, beyond possibly some mutual funds where I'm unaware of what stocks they hold), nor do I particularly care which ZEV tech(s) succeed. So how am I 'pimping'? .
Ego?
Yeah, that must be it! :lol: I am not, nor have I ever been, Donald J. Trump. :roll:
 
arnis said:
Tesla is profitable now. And has been for some time now.
Every single car they sell makes a lot of money - this is called profit.
The fact that all profit is used up for expansion doesn't make a company unprofitable.
Even if more than 100% of profits is used for expansion.

Really? That's not what their financial statements indicate. Remember, there's a difference between a GP (gross profits)
and bottom line financial profits. Apple has a great GP AND a financial profit which assures long term viability.
Tesla only has a good GP but presently has no financial profitability. This week we'll see if things change with the 2016 report. If the Model E really arrives, that'll potentially impact Tesla's present GP but further impact their financial
results.

And yes, back to the Mirai & FCEVs, i.e. another EV to facilitate the transition from ICEVs!
 
What does Apple actually make? Besides money? Factories? No. Phones? No. Laptops? No. Processors? No.
Software? yes. Chargers? No. Apples? No. Oranges? No. Batteries? No. What do they make? Money. Awesome.

How the heck does Tesla build world largest factory, world largest charging network without money?
What will happen if they stop making new factories and new Superchargers? Stop wasting money on new stuff
like PowerPack, Solar Roof?

Why Toyota is not building Hydrogen stations worldwide? Oh yea... I forgot. The main reason to exist is to have
financial profitability. Because without it company will definitely stop existing. Like Tesla.
If Toyota starts investing into "making more things" then they will have bad financial profitability.
Therefore nobody should do new stuff. At least not fast. Ok, 3 hydrogen stations and we will have 30 in a decade.

I hope it is not funny because it is not.
 
arnis said:
What does Apple actually make? Besides money? Factories? No. Phones? No. Laptops? No. Processors? No.
Software? yes. Chargers? No. Apples? No. Oranges? No. Batteries? No. What do they make? Money. Awesome.

This is way off topic but can't help myself: I am not sure what you mean. What is the difference between Apple PAYING for massive new production lines for its products by using subcontractors and actually building said factories and then shutting them later (like car makers do)? Also call car manufacturers, including Tesla, outsource a very large portion of the car to third parties, so how is that different?
 
lorenfb said:
WetEV said:
Tesla, if happy as a high end car company, could be profitable selling expensive cars.

Where're the data to support this? Given the price point that Tesla sells the S/X and their volumes, there's no
possible profitability when R&D, GA & Sales are considered. In the long term Tesla can't survive without a high
volume vehicle, e.g. Model E, to amortize fixed costs and to obtain lower parts costs for the higher end vehicles.
Yeah.. and if everyone like you had that mentality then we'd have no innovation... :roll:

Everyone keeps saying Elon and Tesla and everything else will fail...

Well... I remember back in the 90's they said you couldn't get enough power out of batteries to push a car fast enough or be viable...

I remember when Tesla started and Elon took over EVERYONE said he was a joke and the Roadster was going to fail and so was the company...

I remember when Tesla announced the S and EVERYONE said it was going to be TOO expensive and was going to be a failure (aka 2010/2011)

I remember when Elon and Bro said they were going to do SolarCity and everyone thought they were going to fail because the market was over saturated..

I remember when Tesla announced the Model X... kinda rough start... but look at them now! everybody wants one! and they are all over the place!! NOT ONE Mirai AROUND!!

I remember when Elon talked about SpaceX and starting a rocket company and EVERY F'ing BODY laughed and joked at him...

yup.. the list goes on and on... as do the internet trolls :lol:

Ohhh yeah... doesn't he have the World's biggest factory now?? and something like 600+k orders for some new car??

Howwwww many Mirai's on the road??

Ohhh yeah.. it's "for the deep divers" :roll:
 
And I'll go to post that if you look at the latest crap campaign that Toyota is doing on Social Media for the Mirai "ohhhh thank you Toyota, you're the best car company ever!!" :lol:

There's a TON of responses and replies saying they are Mirai owners and the car has a boatload of issues, lack of fueling infrastructure,etc..

And Toyota is doing nothing for them... hmmm
 
"Tesla will NEVER be profitable".... "Elon Musk is an idiot".... "Tesla will fail before they ever get the first production roadster on the road" ... "Tesla will fail before the Model S ever enters production"... "Nobody wants an electric car, there's zero demand for them".... "Electric cars just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack"... "Even if they make a production electric car, it will never have the performance of an ICE car"... "They are only suitable for neighborhhod vehicles at slow speeds"... "there's never going to be an infrastructure to support electric cars"... "the Grid will fail if we convert to electric cars".... "Electric cars will always be too high priced and owning one will be a more expensive proposition than an ICE car"... "The battery pack will never last, they cost too much and they will not work in cold winter weather"... "They will fail at Tesla because they are NOT big Detroit OEM experts"... "They don't know ANYTHING about sustained production of automobiles" .... "Tesla will NEVER achieve 20,000 cars built in a year... "Hydrogen will be an instantly available fuel infrastructure from clean 100% renewable resources for affordable FCEV's that cost less than a ICE car".

1) First they ignore you
2) then they laugh at you
3) then they fight you
4) then you win

We are at step three for the several hydrogen shills here.
 
Back
Top