Crazy Volt incentives makes me want to trade

They are last decade's designs riding on their laurals as they loose market share.
All hybrids combined are still only 3.2% of the market. They were/are a good idea and a important move for Toyota. They were the first disruptive innovation in the car market in a long time. Their use compared to ICE will hopefully grow but are apporaching the limits of their gains.

You say they planned ahead, I say they cheaped out and applied a basic bandaid after they were caught by surprise. Looking at this chart adapted from the innovators dilemma

The hybrid already went from A to B to C, and is now approaching D. The EV/EREV revolution launched with the Roadseter then Volt/Leaf crossed from not-a-threat (early C) to the dilemma zone and Toyata had to so something. In their home market, where Electricity costs and their market dominance is stronger, they have less risk but in the US and EU markets they need something else. They have now dropped to 4th in terms of overall EV/EREV sales. This was the worse month for the PHV since its launch. Not the right direction.





I expect GM to keep selling mostly ICE vehicles while they slowly refine the EREV and EV vehicles they offer. GM has good tech, now they just need the market acceptance to grow to see the value and accept change while they drive down costs. Classic stage 2 of disruptive innovation.

 

It is worth pointing out that many technologies get stuck in A ( the majority of my angel investments). The EREV and EV seem to have exited A. What is interesting to me is that the EV, via Tesla, is also innovating the business model a bit with direct sales and services and perhaps even a lifetime subscription model.

 

Interesting points.. I still see EREV/EV still in A.. the market penetration is still about 0.5% which is within the scale for early adopters. With it being a higher end purchase the EA sales get spread out. And the Cali "HOV" impact is harder to evaluate. Stage B is the early then middle tail of broader adoption. We are starting to see people on Gm-volt that really don't care at all about efficiency or even all US energy, they are buying for fun, quality, TCO, which is the beginning of the general market acceptance.

Agreed that Tesla is innovating the business model.. which I also think is good. Though I worry about the service issues it may induce. There is no tesla dealer anywhere near me and a map of their servie centers is quite sparse.

I also think the lease approach to leveraging the TCO, which most people don't seem to understand is, for EV/EREV, a change. The buyers are effectively factoring the savings. We'll have to see how these ideas pan out.

 

Having a tech show up with a loaner Tesla, that you can upgrade to if you want, kind of alleviates the need for geographically proximity of service centers. Two or three regional service centers for refurbishment and major repairs might be very sufficient for an initial fleet of 200,000 vehicles (20k model s x 10 years).

 

This is something I'm watching with some curiosity. The S is basically a clean sheet of paper chassis, right? It would be very unusual to not have a bunch of teething pains with such a new, low volume vehicle. I wish them the best.

 

I revised my fleet numbers back to reality for the Model S. Their production line was designed and is outputting 400 vehicles per week.

The simplicity of an EV drive train is a large factor in reducing service costs.

 

ChargePoint won't bill you, even the charger has been supplying electricity for a minute.

I breathed a sigh of relief when demoing it and suddenly realized the potential cost of that removal. Phew!

 

How would you quantify or characterize the limits that hybrids are approaching? With hybrids only about 3% of sales and a smaller percent of cars on the road it still seems to me that there is huge growth potential.

Hybrids will always be quite a bit cheaper than hybrid plugins with substantially more EV capability than the Prius plugin. There is still a large market segment that can't afford higher up-front costs. Today they buy ICE cars but as gas gets more expensive, hybrids seem like they will displace many ICE cars. BEV cars cheap enough to compete on price likely won't have enough range in the near to mid term for many customers.

Many customers will also live in harsh/hot climates or have access issues with charging that will impede their choosing plugins for many years to come.

I tend to see large gains for hybrid cars over the next 20 years.

I tend to think both are true. I suspect Toyota planned ahead by biasing their design and engineering choices to enable the ability to drop in a larger battery pack and share almost all existing Prius powertrain parts.

Meanwhile, I suspect Toyota was surprised by the quickly emerging BEV and hybrid plugin market and chose to be cautious and minimize their commitment of resources until the market clarified. That is probably a wise choice for them due to their existing product line. GM had to innovate because they had less existing product line to work within.

It does look like the Prius plugin is having trouble gaining market share because its capabilities are probably seen as too limited. I think it's a strong and viable choice for a segment of drivers but it isn't as "sexy" and is attracting less initial attention.

I do expect to see both price drops with existing battery sizes and larger pack options as battery prices drop so we'll see more capability choices. Overall, I expect to see a slow and draw-out decline in non-hybrid ICE sales with multiple variations (hybrid, plugin hybrid, BEV) taking their place. I expect non-plugins to dominate the ICE replacement market for at least the next 20 years.

 

Camry hybrid already uses a more powerful traction motor. That system can offer a plug too.

How is that not planning ahead?

 

I would suggest $5/month for unlimited charging. That seems to be working for Austin and San Antonio. I would also suggest maximum 2 hour sessions on L2, and no limit on L1, to encourage sharing of the L2 stations.

Considering your parameters, maybe free for the first two hours (just the $0.35 surcharge) and $2/hr after that.

 

The upper limit for a PiP would be $0.72 per charge based on 1/5 a gallon of gas at $3.60/gallon. Multiply that by 20 work days a month + the $0.35 surcharge and you're looking at $15. Any more than that and you're better off buying gas.

 

I do not think Toyota is falling behind. In the U.S. we have policy by Congress to try to encourage Plug_ins. If we were more like Japan encouraging hybrids, we would actually be more effective cutting energy use. I remain somewhat a skeptic on electrification, and the fact Toyota agrees with me I see as confirmation. Of course, if you are sold on electrification, you would see Toyota's focus on hybrids as defective logic.

I might buy a plug-in someday but just becuase my state is penalizing hybrids. If I can get a large tax credit for buying a Plug-In, I may do so. I always buy cars during tax credits anyways (hybrid, C4C, etc.).

 

Sales estimation is not really my thing, I look at it from the innovation adoption curve view. Agreed there is lots of market room at only 3% of sales and less on the road, but what would drive those sales. The MPG advantage over a high MPG ICE is not as large as it use to be -- the efficiency separation between hybrids and ICE is shrinking, not gaining. However, the perception of sluggish boring is still there. With little technology room for Hybrids to improve, but the greater efficiency AND fun of EV/EREV I expect them to be the growth segment in 2 years while hybrids slowly plateau to 5-7 percent. If we get more releases of start/top and very mild hybrids like the Malibu then it could be higher (but have little real impact). Here is a hybrid take rate chart



And while noisy does show a noticeable plateau which occurs when an innovation reaches its effective tradeoff point. Often this is when a new generation comes in, but I don't see a new major generational tain for regular hybrids.
Only way I see hybrids gaining a lot is if the CAFE standards result in the manufactures deciding its the highest margin product they can push out while meeting them. I don't think the 2012 blip in the plot is market pull as much a manufacturer push and pentup demand. I think the EV/EREV sales will eat into the hybrid sales (for those that really care about efficiency) faster than hybrids will eat into ICE.


I do agree that charging issues will limit the growth rate of EV/EREV's so hybrids will always have a home.
Since nearly 60% of households have 2+ cars, the EV has a shot of being one of two cars, which could work well for many, as long as they have a place to charge.

Of course all of this is just my wild speculation.

 

At the Mall of America, they changed the rate from $1.50 per hour to $0.49 per kWh.

I'm not sure what brought about that change, but I was pleased with the decision.

Rates will likely adjust over time, as the market grows. For now, we'll just have to keep suggesting. I'm sure they'll differ quite a bit, depending upon location, number of spots/chargers, and frequency of use.

 

The needle is tilting toward PiP.

I have seen you put a bunch of stuffs to haul in your Prius. Midsize interior and 5 seats are another plus for PiP. I am sure you knew that already.

 

Would that be the gasoline needle?

 

Per your Fuelly account, you have used 3,827 kWh and 162 gallons over 13,278 miles.

If you get 58 EV miles per charge, you would have used only 2,954 kWh and ZERO gasoline.

If you get 43 MPG on gas, your EV range would be 21.3 miles per charge.

Things don't add up.

If we use EPA values, 3,827 kWh should get you 10,383 miles and 162 gallons should get you 5,994 miles, for a total of 16,377 miles.

In another word, your Volt is doing worse than the EPA estimates.

 

Huh? Volt would use more gasoline for those 200-350 miles weekend drives.

Remember, 37 MPG gas engine wastes 11.8 kWh of energy for every gallon it burns, compare to the 50 MPG engine.