I don't really understand Nissan's Strategy

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.

TomHuffman

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
40
Nissan is publicly committed to the electric car. The company will reportedly release a new version of the Leaf in the next couple of years with double (or more) range. However, having an electric car with additional range does little good if there is not a charging infrastructure to support it. Tesla seems to be the only electric car company that understands this. By the end of 2016 Tesla owners will be able to reach virtually any place in the country solely by using the Supercharger network, making long distance travel practical for the electric car.

To my knowledge, Nissan has no plans to erect a similar network of quick chargers centered on the Interstate highway system. Looking at the CHAdeMO chargers on Plugshare, huge swaths of the country are left uncovered. Furthermore, many of the existing chargers have limited access. For example, at the Dave Solon dealership in Pueblo, CO the CHAdeMO charger is "for use during normal service business hours, which are not as long as dealership hours."

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.

I am currently leasing a Leaf. When my lease is up I currently plan to purchase a Tesla Model III, not because I prefer this (as of now concept) car, but because I know that the car will be supported by the necessary nation-wide charging infrastructure.

This seems like such a no-brainer to me I am mystified by Nissan's approach.
 
The longer the range the less infrastructure is needed.

Many people that travel cross country take an airplane. That is the target market.... enough range for around town or to the airport.
 
Nissan wants to sell enough Leafs to earn the company necessary ZEV credits. They don't, like Tesla, want to change the way people drive. They especially don't want to replace ICE vehicles with EVs. Once you understand this *very limited* commitment to electric vehicles, it's easier to understand.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Nissan wants to sell enough Leafs to earn the company necessary ZEV credits. They don't, like Tesla, want to change the way people drive. They especially don't want to replace ICE vehicles with EVs. Once you understand this *very limited* commitment to electric vehicles, it's easier to understand.
This is so sad, but likely true. And even if Nissan did want to replace ICEs, its dealers wouldn't, complicating matters even further. It's a small miracle that as many dealers have agreed to host DCQCs (around here) as actually have. According to a salesman at the nearest one to me however, it'll "never happen" there. Apparently they just don't sell enough LEAFs and don't want the hassle and/or expense of making life easier for other dealer's customers.
 
TomHuffman said:
...I am currently leasing a Leaf. When my lease is up I currently plan to purchase a Tesla Model III, not because I prefer this (as of now concept) car, but because I know that the car will be supported by the necessary nation-wide charging infrastructure.

You don't really know that. Tesla plan to sell an order of magnitude more Model 3 compared to Model S. I have seen no guarantee that they intend to increase their supercharger capacity by a similar order of magnitude. And existing Model S owners wouldn't be too keen on sharing the existing network with 10 times as many vehicles.
 
Between the home charging stations, long range and existing Supercharger stations, it wouldn't be that huge a problem if Tesla sold a lot more cars than they added new stations.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Between the home charging stations, long range and existing Supercharger stations, it wouldn't be that huge a problem if Tesla sold a lot more cars than they added new stations.

Actually this is the Achilles heal of tesla IMHO. Right now it's limited numbers, expensive, which almost guarantees every model s owner has charging at home (garage). Extend this now to a car in mid-thirties, in a city where a great number of people don't have a garage and therefore no personal charging station. It's success woukd be a disaster. Right now I'm Maryland, which is fairly dense, there are not many charging stations in most areas, and much fewer still tesla superchargers.

So between finding, driving to, and competing for chargers having 10x or 20x more tesl as on the road could be problematic. A tesla supercharger with 4 stalls can't even serve 8 cars/hour.
 
Nubo said:
TomHuffman said:
...I am currently leasing a Leaf. When my lease is up I currently plan to purchase a Tesla Model III, not because I prefer this (as of now concept) car, but because I know that the car will be supported by the necessary nation-wide charging infrastructure.

You don't really know that. Tesla plan to sell an order of magnitude more Model 3 compared to Model S. I have seen no guarantee that they intend to increase their supercharger capacity by a similar order of magnitude. And existing Model S owners wouldn't be too keen on sharing the existing network with 10 times as many vehicles.
I have not seen any such guarantee either. However, Tesla has a demonstrated track record on this. Leaving the bulk of his customers without a charging infrastructure is inconsistent with how Musk approaches his business, which is to change the nature of personal transportation.

Also, the Supercharger network will already be in place when the Model III is released (it mostly is already). Tesla won't need new Supercharger sites, just additional charging stalls at the existing sites.

I mean at least Tesla is trying. What is Nissan doing?
 
epirali said:
LeftieBiker said:
Between the home charging stations, long range and existing Supercharger stations, it wouldn't be that huge a problem if Tesla sold a lot more cars than they added new stations.

Actually this is the Achilles heal of tesla IMHO. Right now it's limited numbers, expensive, which almost guarantees every model s owner has charging at home (garage). Extend this now to a car in mid-thirties, in a city where a great number of people don't have a garage and therefore no personal charging station. It's success woukd be a disaster. Right now I'm Maryland, which is fairly dense, there are not many charging stations in most areas, and much fewer still tesla superchargers.

So between finding, driving to, and competing for chargers having 10x or 20x more tesl as on the road could be problematic. A tesla supercharger with 4 stalls can't even serve 8 cars/hour.
Apartment dwellers have always been a problem for the electric car industry in general. This problem is not specific to Tesla. If you don't have garage charging, then you would need access to a local Supercharger or level III charger with Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter.
 
smkettner said:
The longer the range the less infrastructure is needed.

Many people that travel cross country take an airplane. That is the target market.... enough range for around town or to the airport.
That ability is served already by the 84-mile Leaf. If that were the sole market, then there's no point to releasing a car with double or more the range. I think you substantially underestimate what people would like to do with their electric cars if they only could.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Nissan wants to sell enough Leafs to earn the company necessary ZEV credits. They don't, like Tesla, want to change the way people drive. They especially don't want to replace ICE vehicles with EVs. Once you understand this *very limited* commitment to electric vehicles, it's easier to understand.
I don't see any scenario in which electric cars "replace" ICE vehicles in our life time. At best, they will gradually catch on and become established as a viable alternative for the average driver.

I must say that your speculation about Nissan's motives at least has the virtue of explaining their behavior.
 
TomHuffman said:
epirali said:
LeftieBiker said:
Between the home charging stations, long range and existing Supercharger stations, it wouldn't be that huge a problem if Tesla sold a lot more cars than they added new stations.

Actually this is the Achilles heal of tesla IMHO. Right now it's limited numbers, expensive, which almost guarantees every model s owner has charging at home (garage). Extend this now to a car in mid-thirties, in a city where a great number of people don't have a garage and therefore no personal charging station. It's success woukd be a disaster. Right now I'm Maryland, which is fairly dense, there are not many charging stations in most areas, and much fewer still tesla superchargers.

So between finding, driving to, and competing for chargers having 10x or 20x more tesl as on the road could be problematic. A tesla supercharger with 4 stalls can't even serve 8 cars/hour.
Apartment dwellers have always been a problem for the electric car industry in general. This problem is not specific to Tesla. If you don't have garage charging, then you would need access to a local Supercharger or level III charger with Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter.

Absolutely, I wasn't aiming that just at Tesla. I was using their infrastructure as an example as they have the best developed one AND are planning on a much larger scale car (Model 3).

But I believe this is still a very significant issue. Look at London, a perfect city for electric cars. Even with a Leaf you could commute almost a week before needing a charge. Yet very very few people have garages and charging at home, and there are very few spaces available for public charging.

And btw to say the Tesla will not abandon the need for charging as its part of its plan: talk to any Roadster owner. They are pretty well abandoned. The superchargers provide no stalls or options for charging, and because of the unique grounding characteristics almost 1/2 of the public chargers will fault on start of charge.

And no solution or option has been offered, although all it would take is a simple adapter from the "new style" connector to the old.
 
TomHuffman said:
I mean at least Tesla is trying. What is Nissan doing?
Making a $16k quick charger that:
-Originally was supposed to be $10k (which caused everyone in the market to wait for it to be released...)
-When it *did* arrive it turned out to be a crap design. (5 air filters. Exposed PC grade fans for cooling. Overheats instead of throttling down charge current.)

Trying... :|
 
TomHuffman said:
LeftieBiker said:
Nissan wants to sell enough Leafs to earn the company necessary ZEV credits. They don't, like Tesla, want to change the way people drive. They especially don't want to replace ICE vehicles with EVs. Once you understand this *very limited* commitment to electric vehicles, it's easier to understand.
I don't see any scenario in which electric cars "replace" ICE vehicles in our life time. At best, they will gradually catch on and become established as a viable alternative for the average driver.

I must say that your speculation about Nissan's motives at least has the virtue of explaining their behavior.

I'm not sure any of what I wrote is just "speculation." The ZEV credits are real, Nissan's CEO has talked about the business plan, and a trip to any Nissan dealer or the company's website will make the rest very clear. One thing you can say about Nissan is they haven't been talking up the EV as some sort of Ideal; in this case they are being pretty honest.
 
TomHuffman said:
smkettner said:
The longer the range the less infrastructure is needed.

Many people that travel cross country take an airplane. That is the target market.... enough range for around town or to the airport.
That ability is served already by the 84-mile Leaf. If that were the sole market, then there's no point to releasing a car with double or more the range. I think you substantially underestimate what people would like to do with their electric cars if they only could.

The problem is the so-called "84 mile" Leaf really doesn't have an 84 mile range for a lot of people. People in cold climates are lucky to get half that especially if their Leaf doesn't have the hybrid heater. Same with those who have significant elevation changes during their drives, or drive on highways in which the posted speed limit is treated more as a suggestion than the law. Many people who already have EV's have already stated that they would like more range. Even though my commute only uses a couple of bars each way, I would appreciate the convenience of a larger battery so I don't have to sit in front of Google Maps and PlugShare trying to plan the most power-efficient route and the available charging stations along the way to get to, say, Disneyland from my house. It's that lack of spontaneity that turns many off to EV's.

If it was as simple as providing DCFC's everywhere, we could just lessen the battery size to say 30 miles and just make everybody quick charge often. The benefit would be a cheaper car since the battery will be smaller, plus a lighter car which means it could go further on each kWH. But people won't find that acceptable at all.

A lot of people "want their cake and eat it too" meaning they want the cheap refueling of an electric but they also want to drive it at 75 MPH with the heater cranked up to 80 degrees in subzero weather for at least 60 miles. Or they want to be able to take that spontaneous "150 mile round trip" drive even if it's something they may only do once or twice a year. It's that form of range anxiety that is keeping some folks from adopting EV's, even though in theory it should work for them the overwhelming majority of the time.
 
RonDawg said:
TomHuffman said:
smkettner said:
The longer the range the less infrastructure is needed.

Many people that travel cross country take an airplane. That is the target market.... enough range for around town or to the airport.
That ability is served already by the 84-mile Leaf. If that were the sole market, then there's no point to releasing a car with double or more the range. I think you substantially underestimate what people would like to do with their electric cars if they only could.

The problem is the so-called "84 mile" Leaf really doesn't have an 84 mile range for a lot of people. People in cold climates are lucky to get half that especially if their Leaf doesn't have the hybrid heater. Same with those who have significant elevation changes during their drives, or drive on highways in which the posted speed limit is treated more as a suggestion than the law. Many people who already have EV's have already stated that they would like more range. Even though my commute only uses a couple of bars each way, I would appreciate the convenience of a larger battery so I don't have to sit in front of Google Maps and PlugShare trying to plan the most power-efficient route and the available charging stations along the way to get to, say, Disneyland from my house. It's that lack of spontaneity that turns many off to EV's.

If it was as simple as providing DCFC's everywhere, we could just lessen the battery size to say 30 miles and just make everybody quick charge often. The benefit would be a cheaper car since current battery technology makes up a big chunk of the sticker price, plus a lighter car which means it could go further on each kWH. But people won't find that acceptable at all.

A lot of people "want their cake and eat it too" meaning they want the cheap refueling of an electric but they also want to drive it at 75 MPH with the heater cranked up to 80 degrees in subzero weather for at least 60 miles. Or they want to be able to take that spontaneous "150 mile round trip" drive even if it's something they may only do once or twice a year. It's that form of range anxiety that is keeping some folks from adopting EV's, even though in theory it should work for them the overwhelming majority of the time.

Great points. So as much as it doesn't please pure EV lovers why not the i3 with Rex approach? Get a good size battery that meets 80-90% of your needs, then add a tiny more limited range extender to get another 80 miles or so on the rare occasions. Or, you know, develop hydrogen fuel as the energy source for electric... :D
 
TomHuffman said:
LeftieBiker said:
Nissan wants to sell enough Leafs to earn the company necessary ZEV credits. They don't, like Tesla, want to change the way people drive. They especially don't want to replace ICE vehicles with EVs. Once you understand this *very limited* commitment to electric vehicles, it's easier to understand.
I don't see any scenario in which electric cars "replace" ICE vehicles in our life time. At best, they will gradually catch on and become established as a viable alternative for the average driver.

I must say that your speculation about Nissan's motives at least has the virtue of explaining their behavior.

I don't see this being ZEV focused for Nissan.
If it were, they would only be selling in ZEV states as other compliance vehicles.
Their commitment does go beyond that, although not to the level of Tesla's.

Nissan believes that the future is EVs and they want to be a strong contender in that revolution when it happens.
Tesla wants to bring into being the future of EVs, and they want to lead the revolution.

Both are very strong positions and both have helped make EVs a reality.

As for the OP, your lack of knowledge of Nissan's plans doesn't mean Nissan lacks those plans. It just means Nissan has not shared them with you.

My personal hope is that Nissan chooses, with the second generation Leafs, to join forces with Tesla.

Boom! Instant nationwide, well planned out, convenient, supercharger network at more than double the speed of the current ChaDeMo chargers.
 
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: the target market for EVs is as a commuter vehicle in a 2-car (or more) family with an attached garage. Commuter vehicles don't need charging stations all over the place since everyone has one in their garage. That target market will be better served by a true 100 mile range (cold/hot/highway/whatever) EV, which we assume will be the Leaf Gen 2 (or whatever you want to call it).
 
TomHuffman said:
smkettner said:
The longer the range the less infrastructure is needed.

Many people that travel cross country take an airplane. That is the target market.... enough range for around town or to the airport.
That ability is served already by the 84-mile Leaf. If that were the sole market, then there's no point to releasing a car with double or more the range. I think you substantially underestimate what people would like to do with their electric cars if they only could.
I have not underestimated anything. Nissan filled a niche and will probably expand the range. It will come at a price. 400 mile range for $20,000 is what we want. Not happening as much as that is what we want.
 
Back
Top