twscrap
Well-known member
BMW got me to buy one, so it's hard to disagree.
I don't think anyone ever thought that the Hyundai Fuel Cell was going to be anything other than a compliance car. Not only is it only offered in California, but it is lease only. (A real giveaway.) The article makes it sound like this is some sort of revelation.jmueller065 said:Oh yeah, about that Hyundai Fuel Cell vehicle (interesting read):
http://www.longtailpipe.com/2014/06/hyundai-openly-manipulating-california.html
Sure, but what I really found interesting is how much the CARB ZEV credits are slanted for HFC's vs BEVs. Even though car makers get more credits for HFC's they make and sell BEVs--that shows you how much more of an advantage BEVs have (e.g. are much easer to produce).unplugged said:I don't think anyone ever thought that the Hyundai Fuel Cell was going to be anything other than a compliance car. Not only is it only offered in California, but it is lease only. (A real giveaway.) The article makes it sound like this is some sort of revelation.
Any fuel cell car will be a compliance vehicle for the foreseeable future. There is no hydrogen infrastructure and the cost of each vehicle exceeds $100K. No one can sell the beasts because of the cost. The SOLE reason for any automaker to have a fuel cell car is to rake in CARB credits.
The Board tries to justify the additional credits to fuel cells on the basis of fast fueling and high development and production costs. But I feel EV and HFC credits should be equalized in order to provide an incentive for manufacturers to continue research on fast charge and adding charging station installs. Hyundai is evidently saying that by placing all its emphasis on HFC, it can meet the zero emissions requirements of the CARB regs. Maybe for the next few years, but hopefully, the CARB mandates will eventually shine a light on how ridiculous fuel cells are and how they can't be made in sufficient quantity to satisfy future CARB mandates..jmueller065 said:Sure, but what I really found interesting is how much the CARB ZEV credits are slanted for HFC's vs BEVs. Even though car makers get more credits for HFC's they make and sell BEVs--that shows you how much more of an advantage BEVs have (e.g. are much easer to produce).
I don't think anyone would argue that if not for CARB mandates, EVs would be a much smaller niche than they already are. The very reason CARB has mandated ZEVs is to move the needle on alternative fuel technology. By essentially requiring that automakers subsidize the sale of EVs in order to sell in California (and seven other CARB compliant states), CARB will move EVs from a niche vehicle to a major player comprising more than 15% of vehicles sold in the state by 2025. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Governor's_Office_ZEV_Action_Plan_(02-13).pdf This 15% is not a goal or a some meaningful target that automakers are required to meet. If you want to sell cars in California, you have to SELL 15% of your production as ZEVs. http://www.plugincars.com/automakers-lose-latest-game-chicken-carb%E2%80%99s-zero-emission-rules-128644.htmlpjam3 said:Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition.
That's kind of the point of the credits - get manufacturers off their ***** to where they are building them and people are buying them. That way word gets out about the benefits, supply chains are created and ultimately manufacturing costs are driven down to the point where EVs are affordable for the general population. When flat screen TVs debuted at CES prices were above $20k. Those first, very expensive models have to be developed and early adopters have to purchase to begin getting the world interested in the product. The credits and rebates help foster that change - they will go away, but when they do, EVs will be much cheaper by that point.pjam3 said:The real question is how many people would buy any of these cheaper Electrics if there were no $10K credits and rebates and so on? How many people would buy any of these cars if they were about making the manufacturers money? I doubt anybody would buy the FFE if they sold it for $45K or more. How many people would still buy the Tesla if it were $200K? The biggest issue with EVs is they aren't making most of these companies money.
It's a business. Great for consumers if we can get one for $299 a month or $25K, but pointless to big companies who want to make money on them. Nobody would buy a FFE with a limited range for close to $50K with no rebates or tax credits. Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition. Even Tesla makes money because they sell credits to other manufacturers.
twscrap said:That's kind of the point of the credits - get manufacturers off their ***** to where they are building them and people are buying them. That way word gets out about the benefits, supply chains are created and ultimately manufacturing costs are driven down to the point where EVs are affordable for the general population. When flat screen TVs debuted at CES prices were above $20k. Those first, very expensive models have to be developed and early adopters have to purchase to begin getting the world interested in the product. The credits and rebates help foster that change - they will go away, but when they do, EVs will be much cheaper by that point.pjam3 said:The real question is how many people would buy any of these cheaper Electrics if there were no $10K credits and rebates and so on? How many people would buy any of these cars if they were about making the manufacturers money? I doubt anybody would buy the FFE if they sold it for $45K or more. How many people would still buy the Tesla if it were $200K? The biggest issue with EVs is they aren't making most of these companies money.
It's a business. Great for consumers if we can get one for $299 a month or $25K, but pointless to big companies who want to make money on them. Nobody would buy a FFE with a limited range for close to $50K with no rebates or tax credits. Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition. Even Tesla makes money because they sell credits to other manufacturers.
With that argument, the original MSRP of the FFE should have been $820k. Sorry, they don't cost that much to build. And Sony was going down the toilet before TV prices got so low. It was due to lack of innovative products and inferiority of the ones they were putting out. They've been losing market share in every one of their product lines since 2008.pjam3 said:The difference is nobody was really selling a $20K TV for $1000. Companies weren't taking losses, they just waited till the cost went down and people became interested. But you do realize companies like Sony are pretty much bankrupt because they lose money on TVs.
Personally I see battery prices and degradation fears as a non-issue. BMW has been quoted as saying the i3 pack is $12k in today's dollars. Over an estimated 8 year battery life span someone with a car that gets 20 mpg and drives 15k miles per year will save just under $19k in gas and oil change costs. This doesn't even include brake replacements that won't be necessary.jeffand said:EV sales are growing at about 20% a year. The problem is the price of the battery. This is the most costly part in a EV. It's also the most unproven over time as to how well it will hold up. Once these two requirements are met you will see more people move to EV as vehicle of choice. Improving the driving range to 150 to 200 miles on a single charge would help reduce the driver range issues. Currently EV batteries are made at relatively low volume. At these current levels thier is no compelling reason to invest in developing high volume production. Once demand hits a level that battery manufactures can see the need for high volume production they will make it happen. Now as to how much they can reduce the cost of production yet to be seen.
twscrap said:With that argument, the original MSRP of the FFE should have been $820k. Sorry, they don't cost that much to build. And Sony was going down the toilet before TV prices got so low. It was due to lack of innovative products and inferiority of the ones they were putting out. They've been losing market share in every one of their product lines since 2008.pjam3 said:The difference is nobody was really selling a $20K TV for $1000. Companies weren't taking losses, they just waited till the cost went down and people became interested. But you do realize companies like Sony are pretty much bankrupt because they lose money on TVs.
Personally I see battery prices and degradation fears as a non-issue. BMW has been quoted as saying the i3 pack is $12k in today's dollars. Over an estimated 8 year battery life span someone with a car that gets 20 mpg and drives 15k miles per year will save just under $19k in gas and oil change costs. This doesn't even include brake replacements that won't be necessary.jeffand said:EV sales are growing at about 20% a year. The problem is the price of the battery. This is the most costly part in a EV. It's also the most unproven over time as to how well it will hold up. Once these two requirements are met you will see more people move to EV as vehicle of choice. Improving the driving range to 150 to 200 miles on a single charge would help reduce the driver range issues. Currently EV batteries are made at relatively low volume. At these current levels thier is no compelling reason to invest in developing high volume production. Once demand hits a level that battery manufactures can see the need for high volume production they will make it happen. Now as to how much they can reduce the cost of production yet to be seen.
I always compare the FFE with the ICE Focus since that is its closest match. Guess what: Even when comparing to the 40mpg ICE Focus the FFE still comes out ahead.pjam3 said:Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.
My EV replaced an Audi A4 that got 20 MPG. Not a 'crappy' car.pjam3 said:This is a plain BS argument. Nobody is buying an FFE or Leaf to replace an SUV. And when you start talking about under 20 MPG that's what you're getting.
Why is it people always use SUV and Pick up truck and crappy cars that get terrible gas as a comparison? I could buy a simple and cheap Prius Hybrid and get around 48MPG. Suddenly the FFE doesn't seem all that impressive especially considering gas prices haven't gone over $5 per gallon as people thought.
Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.
We're looking at getting a Focus Electric to replace our Prius. The Focus Electric will cost about half of what the Prius costs for fuel. Our assumptions are:pjam3 said:Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.
pjam3 said:But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.
There are a lot of people (who apparently have a lot of cash to burn) using SUVs as commuter cars, not so much because of their capacity (they're often driving them alone), but because it serves as some kind of "status symbol" for them. I mean, who needs a "luxury SUV"? -- for hauling logs, no; it's for saying "Hey, look at meeee on my giant mobile throne of excess". These people rarely carry many passengers or cargo, even though they could. Yes, they bought the SUV for its size... but not necessarily to use that size in any literally meaningful way.pjam3 said:This is a plain BS argument. Nobody is buying an FFE or Leaf to replace an SUV.
The simple number I always tell people is that the average ICE owner could easily spend about $2000 per year on gas and maintenance. So, buying an ICE car and keeping it for 10 years? Please add another $20,000 to the total cost of your fine automobile. Nobody can argue with this... you will spend tens of thousands dollars on gasoline (possibly equaling or exceeding the full price of the car itself) if you keep the car for any significant length of time.pjam3 said:But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.
Enter your email address to join: