I don't really understand Nissan's Strategy

[TomHuffman]

What it would NOT solve is the problem of your neighbor who wants to drive to San Francisco, rather than Disneyland. For that drive you need a couple of rural quick chargers on the I5.

Nissan has never intended the Leaf to replace 100% of your driving needs. Most of the EV manufacturers don't with their battery electrics. Tesla is the only one.

Even if someone comes up with an affordable BEV with a realistic 200 mile range, most people don't want to sit there for a half-hour or an hour to quick charge the battery. Gassing up only takes a few minutes so one pump can service a lot of people per hour. You'd need a LOT of QC stations to service the same number of people per hour simply because of the wait time involved.

My personal take is that the pure electric car will not fully replace ICEVs in the next 50 years. I think plug-in hybrids and BEVs with range-extender options becoming the majority of vehicles will be as close as we get to that.

I can't speak to what Nissan intends. However, if they intend to offer a product that will never serve anything beyond a small, niche market, then not much needs to be done beyond what they are doing now.

For a 500-mile day, you would only have to stop and charge twice. I don't think most folks would perceive that as burdensome, especially when doing so allows one to travel at substantially lower cost than a gasoline trip would require. Also, you don't have to match gasoline stations one-for-one. The market penetration of EVs will likely be slow process over many, many years. We have plenty of time to expand the charging infrastructure as required.

 

[TomHuffman]

This thread has caused me to think of something I hadn't previously considered, which is how Tesla plans to meet the enormous increase in demand for superchargers once the Model III is released. Musk has confirmed that the Model III will be supercharger ready.

http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-confirms-free-supercharging-for-tesla-gen-3-model-e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The demand for supercharger access will increase by a large amount and very quickly. It will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed.

 

[epirali]

This thread has caused me to think of something I hadn't previously considered, which is how Tesla plans to meet the enormous increase in demand for superchargers once the Model III is released. Musk has confirmed that the Model III will be supercharger ready.

http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-confirms-free-supercharging-for-tesla-gen-3-model-e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The demand for supercharger access will increase by a large amount and very quickly. It will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed.

This is part of what my thought has been for a while, watching the existing infrastructure AND the charge times. Even at 40 minutes the typical supercharger fill up is 10 times slower than gas, and will require 10 times as much capacity given same number of cars. This is a problem.

 

[Zythryn]

This thread has caused me to think of something I hadn't previously considered, which is how Tesla plans to meet the enormous increase in demand for superchargers once the Model III is released. Musk has confirmed that the Model III will be supercharger ready.

http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-confirms-free-supercharging-for-tesla-gen-3-model-e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The demand for supercharger access will increase by a large amount and very quickly. It will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed.

This is part of what my thought has been for a while, watching the existing infrastructure AND the charge times. Even at 40 minutes the typical supercharger fill up is 10 times slower than gas, and will require 10 times as much capacity given same number of cars. This is a problem.

I wouldn't call it a problem, but a challenge.

First, the average "fill up" is just under 30 minutes.
Second, they aren't standing still. Super Chargers continue to be built and I don't expect that to stop. The U.S. Is almost covered with a framework and many areas have many more superchargers (mainly the coasts).

I expect Tesla alone will have another 200-300 charge stations in the U.S. AND will continue to expand the size of existing stations, by the time the Model 3 is first introduced.

And once they have the low population routes done, they can focus more on adding to the network density where demand is highest.

No, not easy, but I can definitely see how it can be done.

 

[epirali]

This thread has caused me to think of something I hadn't previously considered, which is how Tesla plans to meet the enormous increase in demand for superchargers once the Model III is released. Musk has confirmed that the Model III will be supercharger ready.

http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-confirms-free-supercharging-for-tesla-gen-3-model-e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The demand for supercharger access will increase by a large amount and very quickly. It will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed.

This is part of what my thought has been for a while, watching the existing infrastructure AND the charge times. Even at 40 minutes the typical supercharger fill up is 10 times slower than gas, and will require 10 times as much capacity given same number of cars. This is a problem.

I wouldn't call it a problem, but a challenge.

First, the average "fill up" is just under 30 minutes.
Second, they aren't standing still. Super Chargers continue to be built and I don't expect that to stop. The U.S. Is almost covered with a framework and many areas have many more superchargers (mainly the coasts).

I expect Tesla alone will have another 200-300 charge stations in the U.S. AND will continue to expand the size of existing stations, by the time the Model 3 is first introduced.

And once they have the low population routes done, they can focus more on adding to the network density where demand is highest.

No, not easy, but I can definitely see how it can be done.

It can be done, but I think this papers over the real issue. More range means longer charge time. 30 minutes is optimistic depending on whether conditions/battery temperature. And again if for a second you assume 100% BEVs you will start seeing the scale of the problem. Tesla can not foot the bill (no private company can). And the economic model is not there for a commercial network.

 

[Zythryn]

It can be done, but I think this papers over the real issue. More range means longer charge time. 30 minutes is optimistic depending on whether conditions/battery temperature. And again if for a second you assume 100% BEVs you will start seeing the scale of the problem. Tesla can not foot the bill (no private company can). And the economic model is not there for a commercial network.

As I said, it won't be easy. But they have a path, and a plan.
Considering I have made about 50 supercharger stops, and know many other owners that have made a lot, I'd say 30 is pretty accurate.

And more range does not mean more charge time. More range to your next stop, means more charge time.
I have about 255 miles of range. When I stop at a supercharger, I fill up only enough to get to the next stop, plus a small buffer. That buffer has gotten smaller the better I get to know the car.
That is typically 150 miles, which can be charged in 20-30 minutes.

First, if we ever get to 100% EVs, it will take a very long time.
Second, there is no way Tesla will be footing the whole bill, as they are not, and won't be, the only manufacturer.
Heck, if they were, they could easily afford it;-)

In the time it takes to get to 100% (hypothetically), batteries will improve, allowing for faster charges. Infrastructure will continue to be built out, including at multi housing locations and workplaces.

I don't see this an insurmountable. Will their be bumps in the road? Of course. But it can be done.

 

[epirali]

It can be done, but I think this papers over the real issue. More range means longer charge time. 30 minutes is optimistic depending on whether conditions/battery temperature. And again if for a second you assume 100% BEVs you will start seeing the scale of the problem. Tesla can not foot the bill (no private company can). And the economic model is not there for a commercial network.

As I said, it won't be easy. But they have a path, and a plan.
Considering I have made about 50 supercharger stops, and know many other owners that have made a lot, I'd say 30 is pretty accurate.

And more range does not mean more charge time. More range to your next stop, means more charge time.
I have about 255 miles of range. When I stop at a supercharger, I fill up only enough to get to the next stop, plus a small buffer. That buffer has gotten smaller the better I get to know the car.
That is typically 150 miles, which can be charged in 20-30 minutes.

First, if we ever get to 100% EVs, it will take a very long time.
Second, there is no way Tesla will be footing the whole bill, as they are not, and won't be, the only manufacturer.
Heck, if they were, they could easily afford it;-)

In the time it takes to get to 100% (hypothetically), batteries will improve, allowing for faster charges. Infrastructure will continue to be built out, including at multi housing locations and workplaces.

I don't see this an insurmountable. Will their be bumps in the road? Of course. But it can be done.

I think this is very optimistic. First realize Tesla is still losing money, and this will become even worse when it releases a $35K car with little margin, and MANY MORE UNITS.

Other manufacturers are all bickering and not joining a common standard (right now I count around 4). And Tesla is the worse offender, they are proprietary.

I also think you are probably somewhere where it doesn't get hot, I know all charging circuits will throttle charging based no ambient/battery temp.

And finally as others have pointed out the limit at rate of charge is the current/voltage, and the cabling/connectors required. I mean a quick charge cabling is already pretty hefty, don't know how much more you can go before it becomes hard to handle.

 

[Zythryn]

It can be done, but I think this papers over the real issue. More range means longer charge time. 30 minutes is optimistic depending on whether conditions/battery temperature. And again if for a second you assume 100% BEVs you will start seeing the scale of the problem. Tesla can not foot the bill (no private company can). And the economic model is not there for a commercial network.

As I said, it won't be easy. But they have a path, and a plan.
Considering I have made about 50 supercharger stops, and know many other owners that have made a lot, I'd say 30 is pretty accurate.

And more range does not mean more charge time. More range to your next stop, means more charge time.
I have about 255 miles of range. When I stop at a supercharger, I fill up only enough to get to the next stop, plus a small buffer. That buffer has gotten smaller the better I get to know the car.
That is typically 150 miles, which can be charged in 20-30 minutes.

First, if we ever get to 100% EVs, it will take a very long time.
Second, there is no way Tesla will be footing the whole bill, as they are not, and won't be, the only manufacturer.
Heck, if they were, they could easily afford it;-)

In the time it takes to get to 100% (hypothetically), batteries will improve, allowing for faster charges. Infrastructure will continue to be built out, including at multi housing locations and workplaces.

I don't see this an insurmountable. Will their be bumps in the road? Of course. But it can be done.

I think this is very optimistic. First realize Tesla is still losing money, and this will become even worse when it releases a $35K car with little margin, and MANY MORE UNITS.

Other manufacturers are all bickering and not joining a common standard (right now I count around 4). And Tesla is the worse offender, they are proprietary.

I also think you are probably somewhere where it doesn't get hot, I know all charging circuits will throttle charging based no ambient/battery temp.

And finally as others have pointed out the limit at rate of charge is the current/voltage, and the cabling/connectors required. I mean a quick charge cabling is already pretty hefty, don't know how much more you can go before it becomes hard to handle.

Tesla, so far has surpassed my optimism a number of times. I don't mind being a bit optimistic.

There are currently 3 DC quick charge standards.
Tesla's is indeed proprietary. They have also offered to allow any manufacturer to participate in their network. Up thread I suggested this may be why Nissan hasn't shown signs of planning a fast charge network, they plan to join forces with Tesla. That is a pure guess on my part, but it fits.
Tesla's standard is also the best currently, and the only one with a laid out expansion plan.

I've charged in many different states. I think the cold slows the charge more than heat.

Tesla is making money hand over fist. And they are spending money hand over fist on establishing a worldwide presence. That expansion of stores will slow, and that can all be put towards supercharging.
Tesla is also making other money saving moves that results in more free cash.

For example, in the U.S. at least, they are shipping cars by rail rather than truck. This should be much less expensive. Not sure exactly how much, but I am looking forward to the 2nd quarter results to get a better idea.

 

[epirali]

Tesla, so far has surpassed my optimism a number of times. I don't mind being a bit optimistic.

There are currently 3 DC quick charge standards.
Tesla's is indeed proprietary. They have also offered to allow any manufacturer to participate in their network. Up thread I suggested this may be why Nissan hasn't shown signs of planning a fast charge network, they plan to join forces with Tesla. That is a pure guess on my part, but it fits.
Tesla's standard is also the best currently, and the only one with a laid out expansion plan.

I've charged in many different states. I think the cold slows the charge more than heat.

Tesla is making money hand over fist. And they are spending money hand over fist on establishing a worldwide presence. That expansion of stores will slow, and that can all be put towards supercharging.
Tesla is also making other money saving moves that results in more free cash.

For example, in the U.S. at least, they are shipping cars by rail rather than truck. This should be much less expensive. Not sure exactly how much, but I am looking forward to the 2nd quarter results to get a better idea.

We will see, I am not as optimistic as you are. I think Tesla right now is involved in a bit of an investment "shell game" that is covering up the real economics. Mind you they aren't doing anything hinky, they just have a lot of overly enthused supporters and investors. This works for a bit, but eventually real economics comes into play.

I don't believe that Tesla offer to other manufacturers is genuine in the least. It is a tactic and it is a good one. But they know no one will take them up on it and tie themselves to that small a company. Because let's be realistic: Tesla is very very small. Nissan can take losses on the Leaf from a much larger operation (so can Toyota), but Tesla has limited runway.

Well I don't discount your points, I guess only time will tell. My business sense tells me that Tesla's strategy won't work (yet), and Nissan I believe is just doing a combination of hedging bets, gaining goodwill and data, and meeting clean air requirements.

I think the only manufacturers who are taking this very seriously so far seem to be the germans, and they are starting to fall towards a hybrid ICE/charging approach (look at Audi and BMW). I know that a $35K Model 3 Tesla IF and WHEN it comes out at that price will be the death knell for Nissan, but I also believe that as soon as carmakers start offering compelling cars that can do 30-40 miles pure battery and then use traditional engine Teslas days will be numbered.

 

[mjblazin]

How do you define making money hand over fist?
In the last quarter, loss was $154mm, cash flow was negative $433 mm excluding borrowing.
Cash flow for full year 2014 was negative $.99 BB excluding loans.
That means cash needs are accelerating. I understand it has a lot of irons in the fire, but they are very far from the business of selling cars paying for those irons.

Jury is still out.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

I think is about time to get real. Where is the big crowd of potential customers waiting to buy BEV? Nissan manage to sell relatively big number of Leaf, but price that people pay is near close to $35K after fed tax credit. I wish Tesla all the best, but to me expectation for Tesla economy car are way too high, and unfortunately there is not that much profit margin there. Nissan limited involvement in building infrastructure make a lot of financial sense.

 

[Zythryn]

How do you define making money hand over fist?
In the last quarter, loss was $154mm, cash flow was negative $433 mm excluding borrowing.
Cash flow for full year 2014 was negative $.99 BB excluding loans.
That means cash needs are accelerating. I understand it has a lot of irons in the fire, but they are very far from the business of selling cars paying for those irons.

Jury is still out.

1st quarter they grossed about 1 Billion on cars alone.
Yes, other companies gross more in sales, but 4 Billion a year in sales is still raking in a cash "hand over fist".

And yes, they are spending a lot on;
service centers and stores worldwide,
a global infrastructure, delivering more power than any other DC network,
building a factory which will, at full speed, produce as many Li batteries as the entire world does today.

You are correct though, the jury is still out.
It is just I have watched Tesla every step of the way prove the naysayers wrong.
There were people on this forum 5 years ago that said, Tesla won't be around in 5 years;-)

Frankly, I have no issues with those saying what Tesla wants to do can't be done.
I just think they shouldn't get in the way of Tesla actually doing it

 

[epirali]

I think is about time to get real. Where is the big crowd of potential customers waiting to buy BEV? Nissan manage to sell relatively big number of Leaf, but price that people pay is near close to $35K after fed tax credit. I wish Tesla all the best, but to me expectation for Tesla economy car are way too high, and unfortunately there is not that much profit margin there. Nissan limited involvement in building infrastructure make a lot of financial sense.

I think you mean $35K before, because with discount and tax credit I only paid around $23K for my Leaf. I think Tesla can get profit margin because a significant part of the cost is the battery, and they are wisely investing in battery infrastructure of their own rather than relying on others. Obviously this will help with margins.

Nissan on the other hand doesn't seem to be looking to make any positive money even from the cars yet. It will be interesting to see what happens with the next version.

 

[Nubo]

This is a chicken-and-egg problem. One of the main reasons that EVs don't sell better is because of the lack of a charging infrastructure...

It's always a chicken and egg problem.

Electrify every house in America? Impossible! How can we possibly string power to rural locales? Who is going to build all the power plants? ....

Every family will have an automobile? Impossible! How could we possibly build that many paved roads? Where will we get all the steel? How can we possibly make that much fuel and build that many fueling stations?

Air-conditioning becomes ubiquitous? Impossible! How could we possibly add that much load to our electrical grid?

Everyone have a computer? Impossible! What can you really do with a computer that's useful?

Universal access to the internet? Impossible! There's no way to supply that much bandwidth.

 

[Nubo]

I think this is very optimistic. First realize Tesla is still losing money, and this will become even worse when it releases a $35K car with little margin, and MANY MORE UNITS. ...

Of course they're losing money. They're in a rapidly-expanding growth phase. They've got to achieve a critical mass to be big enough to compete with other major manufacturers. In addition they've got to create the battery manufacturing capacity and charging infrastructure to enable the revolution. It's not about profit, it's about plowing everything into growth and expansion. If they were making a profit they'd be doing it wrong.

 

[epirali]

I think this is very optimistic. First realize Tesla is still losing money, and this will become even worse when it releases a $35K car with little margin, and MANY MORE UNITS. ...

Of course they're losing money. They're in a rapidly-expanding growth phase. They've got to achieve a critical mass to be big enough to compete with other major manufacturers. In addition they've got to create the battery manufacturing capacity and charging infrastructure to enable the revolution. It's not about profit, it's about plowing everything into growth and expansion. If they were making a profit they'd be doing it wrong.

No arguments, I wasn't talking about profits. My point is the fundamental economics of BEVs on a large scale are wrong. I don't want to keep repeating the same points over and over, but Tesla can not create enough of a public infrastructure for BEVs to be anything but a niche market.

 

[Moof]

I don't understand the business strategy of investing tens of millions of dollars into a technology without also making a modest additional investment in the infrastructure needed to make the success of the product possible. A $20 million dollar investment would underwrite 400 CHAdeMO chargers, which--if strategically placed along the Interstate highway system--would make a 150-mile range Leaf a practical choice for long range trips. As far as I can tell, Nissan has no such plan.

Ford doesn't invest in gas stations, news at 11. The better question is why Tesla chooses to invest in their network?

Chademo is not an acceptable long term solution, it is far too slow for interstate travel, and a 150 mile electric fleet will make it mostly useless for most in-town travel. Only those who drive 100+ miles a daily will visit them regularly, and for them it will be a frustratingly slow charge time. Someone doing that much driving everyday will quickly tire of sitting at the charger for close to an hour everyday. So far the installations are just one or two at a spot making it likely someone else will be there when you arrive, and that you will be screwed if it is broken. Chademo is a flawed system that has been half heartedly rolled out. It will only fill a small gap of folks who want to take regional trips, or for the few adventurers who won't mind spending a third of their interstate travel day waiting at the charger.

Level 2 will cease to make sense even in-town once we have longer range car except at work, home, or at travel destinations such as hotels. Work charging will become less necessary and less attractive to employers as range increases as well. Interstate hotels are one the the few places I can see Level 2 stations being added in great numbers, a place they don't make sense at today but will in the future.

Tesla's system nails the important points for a good system. The stations have many stalls, making it unlikely you will have to wait a long time. The charge rate is fast enough that a long trip will have less than 20% of your time wasted at the charging station. Lastly, the cars themselves let you drive for a couple hours on the freeway between charge stops.

So Tesla has it right, but why do they bother? It looks to me like they are a premium brand that needs to stick out from the pack. Their 85 kWh battery option would actually be pretty stupid without a good infrastructure to allow interstate travel. 80-100 miles is plenty for most commuting, so the primary need for anything much bigger than 100 miles road trip capability. So Tesla couldn't reasonably do a big pack without also rolling out a charging network, and being a premium brand it had to be better than Chademo (what a stupid name, right up there with EVSE for awfulness).

Today's Nissan Leaf is a good little commuter car, but to roll out a bunch of Chademo stations would only address a vocal minority who commute long distances or who are trying to be a Leaf only house without wanting to rent a gasser for occasional longer trips. For the vast majority home Level 2 charging, and maybe work charging is plenty. A double range Leaf will probably still not make it a decent interstate car, and it will make it even more likely that people will do virtually ALL of their charging at home where it is cheapest.

 

[Nubo]

I think this is very optimistic. First realize Tesla is still losing money, and this will become even worse when it releases a $35K car with little margin, and MANY MORE UNITS. ...

Of course they're losing money. They're in a rapidly-expanding growth phase. They've got to achieve a critical mass to be big enough to compete with other major manufacturers. In addition they've got to create the battery manufacturing capacity and charging infrastructure to enable the revolution. It's not about profit, it's about plowing everything into growth and expansion. If they were making a profit they'd be doing it wrong.

No arguments, I wasn't talking about profits. My point is the fundamental economics of BEVs on a large scale are wrong. I don't want to keep repeating the same points over and over, but Tesla can not create enough of a public infrastructure for BEVs to be anything but a niche market.

Ultimately, they don't have to create the final infrastructure. They only need to create a fleet size sufficient to create the demand for more infrastructure. The need to reach the tipping point, and then everything follows with its own momentum.

 

[desiv]

Only those who drive 100+ miles a daily will visit them regularly

As people have pointed out to others before, that leaves out the whole "renter/apartment dweller" market.
And that will be a huge market..
It would be great to think that eventually all apartments/rentals will have EV chargers, but that's probably a LONG way from happening.
In the mean time, a more robust QC environment should fit the bill for many who have enough range and a short enough commute to charge every few days (like they get gas for ICE cars now).

That said, I think it's probably not a huge business mistake not to spend too much money on that market, at large as it is. Start by building / supporting the easier market. Those who don't "need" the extra chargers and/or range but "want" it. It's mostly about confidence..
As they found out in Japan, EV use went way up when they added more chargers, even if the use of the chargers didn't go way up. It's about confidence and that balance at this stage.
Yes, there are people at the extreme edge who drive a LOT and need to charge frequently because of it (myself included), but they are outliers. Early adopters still.. ;-)

People also seem to be thinking that Nissan's market choices NOW are their long term goals. Not sure why.
Just because Nissan is choosing to aim for the smaller market now, there is no reason to think that as battery tech improves, prices drop, and infrastructure grows (whether they help that or not) that they don't plan on being more aggressive later. The market is still early.

desiv

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Of course they're losing money. They're in a rapidly-expanding growth phase. They've got to achieve a critical mass to be big enough to compete with other major manufacturers. In addition they've got to create the battery manufacturing capacity and charging infrastructure to enable the revolution. It's not about profit, it's about plowing everything into growth and expansion. If they were making a profit they'd be doing it wrong.

I thought that Nissan was on the way to enable the revolution when Leaf was introduced. In the meantime price for the Leaf drop significantly, but sale is still similar to what it was when everybody was waiting so anxiously to get pre ordered Leaf. Back than condition was very favorable as gas price was so high, and I was really thinking EV will spread as a fire. In the meantime gas price dropped, and mpg on ICE increased, as much as Tesla is a great car I won't buy it because it does not make financial sense to me, I do not care that much about acceleration and power or latest gadgets, or coolness factor. I do a lot of long distance travel (400-600 miles) and prefer to stop for fuel less frequently or not at all if possible. Best EV on the market still too expensive and as not as much convenient as ICE.