mbender
Well-known member
Now my brain hurts, too. Is it possible that there's a bit of Birtish/American division (by a common language) problem here?
EdmondLeaf said:
I don't really understand Nissan's Strategy
- Thread starter TomHuffman
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
EdmondLeaf
Well-known member
I think the best will be drop attitude and spread the message, and that will help Tesla, Nissan and GM to make EV profitable does not matter if SC or QC there or not.
mbender said:
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
I am starting to think that you are not posting in good faith.EdmondLeaf said:
1. The study you cite conflates simple hybrid cars--such as the Prius and Camry hybrids--with plug-in electric cars, either BEV or PHEV. The great fall in sales has occurred among hybrid cars, but not among plug-in electrics.
The actual quote from the Edmunds.com study is "EVs and hybrids accounted for just 2.7 percent of all new car sales in the first quarter of 2015, down from 3.3 percent during that same period last year." [emphasis mine]
If you look at Tesla sales, who have adopted the electric car + charging infrastructure strategy I have advocated, their sales have been steady at about 17,000 units annually. In 2015 they will almost certainly sell considerably more, both because the Model S is selling better and the Model X will be released. The other two main players--the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt--will likely see somewhat slower sales in 2015, but I would argue that is primarily because buyers are postponing a purchasing decision until the the next-generation longer range vehicles become available. This is obviously the case with the Volt.
2. I have no idea what "Just few days ago Tesla S was doing less than 60 on the highway" is supposed to mean. You noticed one guy driving a Tesla slowly and you draw some global conclusions from this observation about the EV market. Are you serious?
3. Charging to 100% is a really bad idea, because--and I am sure you know this, but decided not to mention it--the last 20% is agonizingly slow. That's why most quick charger speed claims are stated as time to 80% charge instead. My guess as to the number of Tesla owners who spend 2 hrs at a Supercharger stop are pretty close to zero.
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
You are absolutely correct. Clearly this guy is just taking a position to be provocative. His post should not be taken seriously.Zythryn said:
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
Surely, you exaggerate. Studies on the Leaf (http://news.fleetcarma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Leaf_Range_Cold_Weather_FleetCarma.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return falseeloder said:
indicate that its range drops to about 50 miles in sub zero weather (not 30-40 miles). A CHAdeMO charger will charge a Leaf to about 80% capacity in 30 minutes.TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
On what do you base this comment? I mean, just exactly which long-range "lower priced mass-market BEV" are you referring to? They don't yet exist. Currently, the range difference between these cars is so small that it just doesn't matter. Do you really believe that a 150-mile or 200-mile BEV at the same price point would have a negligible effect on sales?edatoakrun said:
EdmondLeaf
Well-known member
If OP is convinced that 400 CHAdeMO chargers is what is needed to completely change demand for middle range EV, than this is great business opportunity. Wonder if OP is willing to invest in this business? Modest investment - unlimited profit potential.TomHuffman said:
EdmondLeaf said:
Very misleading.
The investment in fast chargers alone is most likely a loosing proposition, or at best, a very, very small profit.
Whee the "no brainier" aspect kicks in is where you are benefiting from the sale of the cars.
Tesla is a great example of this. The SuperChargers on their own make no money, heck they are a loss.
However, the presence of the supercharger network gets the, more sales for the Model S. And they make a lot of profit off those (much more than they loose on the SuperChargers).
Zythryn said:
Another way to put it: the price of the supercharger network is baked into a car that starts at $75K.
Nissan Leaf is $30K.
This is my fundamental point about BEVs, strategy and charging. No one wants to lose money in the business of charging infrastructure, and the only car company that is STILL losing net money by having to invest in chargers and batteries needs to charge a MINIMUM of $80K.
This is simply not a winning business proposition for mass adoption.
Edit: fixed price on the Tesla so my point didn't get lost in discussing $5K.
EdmondLeaf
Well-known member
With twice much population, higher population density, and more than 1000 CHAdeMO in Europe, in 2014 Leaf sale was 50% of US sale, indicating that CHAdeMO may have no effect on Leaf sale.
Wonder if there is any study how existing 400 CHAdeMO chargers in US affected Leaf sale?
Wonder if there is any study how existing 400 CHAdeMO chargers in US affected Leaf sale?
rexki
Well-known member
I have read pages 1-8 and the last two and I saw only one mention of the price of gasoline at $6.00 ??
Don't forget that BEV is an AFV. AFV's reduce reliance on foreign oil. Money spent on OPEC oil makes it to people we construe as our current enemies. These enemies use the money to buy food, housing, weapons and ammo. This in turn causes some of our young soldiers to return in body bags and other with serious life time mental illnesses.
Most in the US do not care about the above ideas, I want my truck (male majority) or SUV to ride higher (female majority), Gasoline at 1.65 - 3.50 does not bother me, all is well in America. I get a little upset when it gets above 3.50. Historical fuel average for Chicago area last 9 years has been $2.70!! That fits in the very comfortable zone, there was a period that it was at $5.00!! Ouch OMG!
Nissan (and other OEM manufacturers) knows that Gasoline stability of both production, politics, and ultimate price could make their ICE business seriously constrained to the point of bankruptcy. This is the real reason for AFV including BEV that Nissan has ventured into with sound strategic strategies both published and those as trump cards.
Here are the real reasons that BEV will eventually win - that pivot point of the cost of gasoline - not long distance charging. At a certain gas price all ICE driving will become seriously reduced - I say around $10/gallon - really don't know?
Economics of BEV:
Take the savings on Gasoline versus electricity and put that into a 8% interest bearing account and do this for 8 years (life of a BEV battery/warranty).
@8% - 8 yrs a $31,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $2.73 petrol per gallon and 1,000 miles per month compared to 16 mpg vehicle.
If you drive 16,200 miles per year - 44.4 miles per day:
@8% - 8 yrs a $31,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $2.85 petrol per gallon compared to 17 mpg vehicle.
@8% - 8 yrs a $90,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $4.19 petrol per gallon compared to 17 mpg vehicle.
Once this knowledge gets out when the price of gas gets painful @ $6.00, the charging infrastructure will become a mute point.
Don't forget that BEV is an AFV. AFV's reduce reliance on foreign oil. Money spent on OPEC oil makes it to people we construe as our current enemies. These enemies use the money to buy food, housing, weapons and ammo. This in turn causes some of our young soldiers to return in body bags and other with serious life time mental illnesses.
Most in the US do not care about the above ideas, I want my truck (male majority) or SUV to ride higher (female majority), Gasoline at 1.65 - 3.50 does not bother me, all is well in America. I get a little upset when it gets above 3.50. Historical fuel average for Chicago area last 9 years has been $2.70!! That fits in the very comfortable zone, there was a period that it was at $5.00!! Ouch OMG!
Nissan (and other OEM manufacturers) knows that Gasoline stability of both production, politics, and ultimate price could make their ICE business seriously constrained to the point of bankruptcy. This is the real reason for AFV including BEV that Nissan has ventured into with sound strategic strategies both published and those as trump cards.
Here are the real reasons that BEV will eventually win - that pivot point of the cost of gasoline - not long distance charging. At a certain gas price all ICE driving will become seriously reduced - I say around $10/gallon - really don't know?
Economics of BEV:
Take the savings on Gasoline versus electricity and put that into a 8% interest bearing account and do this for 8 years (life of a BEV battery/warranty).
@8% - 8 yrs a $31,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $2.73 petrol per gallon and 1,000 miles per month compared to 16 mpg vehicle.
If you drive 16,200 miles per year - 44.4 miles per day:
@8% - 8 yrs a $31,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $2.85 petrol per gallon compared to 17 mpg vehicle.
@8% - 8 yrs a $90,000 BEV pays for itself completely after Gas and Repairs savings at $4.19 petrol per gallon compared to 17 mpg vehicle.
Once this knowledge gets out when the price of gas gets painful @ $6.00, the charging infrastructure will become a mute point.
epirali said:
Also very misleading.
You MIGHT have a point if the ONLY reason for the price difference were the fast charge network.
Triple the range, luxury level ride, performance, etc are a bigger part of the price difference than the SuperChargers.
The company is clearing over 25% profit margin on each car sold. Yes, they spend some of that on expanding SuperChargers, however, they spend much more on expanding their business. Sales and service centers take a lot more money than SuperChargers.
Zythryn said:
Actually it is not misleading. There is additional cost to the battery, and to some of the production. In my humble opinion there is not much luxury increase (moving door handles do not luxury make). I am sorry but expensive is not the same as luxury.
If you look at the number of cars Tesla has sold and the amount of dollars they have spent on the CURRENT infrastructure I am calculating around $2-3K MINIMUM so far per car. This is only in build costs as reported, not maintenance and operations. And I would argue it is nowhere near sufficient. I live in Maryland where there is high density and a lot of money and yet superchargers are not close enough for realistic use.
The battery itself is probably costing around $9K or so for triple the capacity. And they charge $45K more per car. So the strategy obviously CAN NOT be scaled to affordable cars that compete with ICE.
Nissan is not making any money on the Leafs by any report. In fact they are losing money. And honestly they seem to be getting a lot of grief over the "cost" of the car. I don't see a lot of people rushing to the Leaf for economics UNLESS they only need very short range or city commute.
So how does any of this point to an affordable charging infrastructure, or a business model that makes it profitable for the masses?
I can back up my points with hard business arguments. If you do not agree please correct them.
dgpcolorado
Well-known member
With a degraded battery? When pushing through snow? Running the heater? At freeway speeds? Stopping at LBW, as a lot of people seem to do, versus VLBW or turtle?TomHuffman said:Surely, you exaggerate. Studies on the Leaf (http://news.fleetcarma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Leaf_Range_Cold_Weather_FleetCarma.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
I'm not sure where those data points came from but in ordinary use by ordinary people the LEAF range in subzero weather would have an upper limit of 50 miles and be quite a bit less in adverse driving conditions. Running down to turtle in subzero weather is a life-threatening situation.
Not in subzero temperatures. Not even close.
The problem with CHAdeMO — as it is currently implemented — is it is too slow charging for actual long distance trips, say 1000 miles, and the lack of redundancy and reliability. There is too much risk of CHAdeMO chargers being broken or in use to be relied on for genuine long distance trips, hopping from charger to charger. While these things could be improved on with somewhat faster charging versions of CHAdeMO — and cars with much larger battery packs to accommodate them — as well as a vast increase (at least an order of magnitude) in the charger stations and density, the idea that this is likely to be implemented in the foreseeable future strikes me as unlikely.
So far as I can see, Nissan views the LEAF, and LEAF 2 I would guess, as local/regional cars supplemented by a backup ICEV for long road trips. Only Tesla is trying to get people to view their EVs as cars suitable for local as well as long distance trips, no backup ICE car needed. Nissan's strategy is valid, since there is potentially a huge market for local/regional EVs, especially once people realize how superior the driving experience is. IMHO, of course.
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
As I have written several times now, a quick charger network is really useful when and ONLY when you have a car with substantially greater EV range than the current Leaf. The US could have 10,000 CHAdeMO chargers and it wouldn't make much difference now because an 80-mile range car simply isn't practical for anything other than a commuting city car.EdmondLeaf said:
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
This is NOT about business risk, at least not the way you frame it. Nissan had an operating profit last year of 5 billion dollars. A 20 million dollar investment in a charging network would be a rounding error for them. Somehow Tesla manages it with MUCH smaller operating capital.epirali said:
There is something else going on. I am leaning towards what one of the earliest posts in this thread suggested, which is that, unlike Tesla, Nissan is not interested in fundamentally transforming the way that we drive. The company is too heavily invested in an ICE economy. They don't really want EVs to succeed on a large scale. They just want to serve one small niche market.
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
I agree with most of what you write here, except the conclusion. Without an adequate charging infrastructure, EVs will NEVER have wide adoption regardless of any other factors. Consumers already pay more than $6 a gallon in Europe and have for a long time. The price of gas is one factor in the desirability of EVs, but it is certainly not the decisive factor. What is decisive is having a vehicle that does what you want it to do at a price you can afford. Doing what you want it to do includes being able to take occasional long distance trips. This cannot happen without BOTH an EV with adequate range AND a nationwide quick charging infrastructure.rexki said:
TomHuffman
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 40
This leaves out all consumers whodgpcolorado said:
1) Live in an apartment or condo and do not have a private garage for charging.
2) Do not want to buy a second car to make their EV practical.
This is a strategy of failure. No car will ever widely successful under these conditions.
On the other hand, a PHEV could be successful. I would buy the 2016 Volt if only it allowed for DC charging. With a quick charge option you could live in an apartment and charge your Volt at a local quick charger 2-3 times a week. If I knew that I would always live in a house with a garage I would be satisfied with a Volt. But I don't know that.
TomHuffman said:
I think that is a very fair and correct statement in my opinion (motivation of two companies).
But business is business, I don't think Nissan work by saying "oh this loses money so we will cover it from things that make money." Also my point is for affordable EVs to catch on beyond a niche it MUST be a self sustaining money maker. Otherwise ICE cars are just subsidizing EVs which is not the point.
dgpcolorado
Well-known member
Yes, BEVs aren't a good match with housing that has no charging options. But these are a minority and my guess is that many condos and apartments built in the future will have charge stations as amenities (and it doesn't take a garage to have EVSEs available at apartment parking spaces). My state already offers grants for apartment/condo complexes that install EVSEs (paid for by part of the annual registration fee on plug-in cars).TomHuffman said:
With something like 60% of households in the USA already having two or more vehicles, the potential market for local/regional EVs is already immense. A car doesn't have to be all things to all drivers; none are. For single car households a PHEV (or EV plus rental cars, as needed) would make more sense. Even PHEVs don't make much sense for households that can't access home charging.
While I think that Tesla has a better idea, that doesn't mean that there isn't a sizable market for EVs that aren't practical for long road trips. Such as LEAF 2, whenever it comes out, especially if it is substantially cheaper than the road-trip capable Tesla Model 3.
Over the longer term, I expect the personal car market to gravitate to something closer to the Tesla model, perhaps with double the range of current Teslas (although that will take a significant advance in battery technology). But that's a long way off.
