Bloomberg predicts BEVs are the vehicles of the future

Hmm. Maybe missing the point t of your phrase, bisco.

I have faith that we could have 50% EVs if that was a common goal/vision that all people held.

But history shows us that there are many competing goals. So I think that is what will hold things back.

 

That doesn't jive with them increasing Bolt production. Though, I'm expecting more from Ford.
GM says it is increasing Chevy Bolt EV production by ‘more than 20 percent’ | Electrek
The dealership structure in the US is a hurdle, even for Toyota. Look at the Prime's availability in the South for proof. It has spent a lot of money fighting Tesla's business model.

​

Not a mistake, a disappointment from the company that brought us the forward thinking Prius, a car model that benefited from subsidies since its introduction in Japan.

Batteries is a large cost of any plug in. They need outside support in beginning in order to get business to make the investments to lower that cost. If everyone decided to wait until the cars didn't need such outside support, then the investments would not be made, and the costs would never come down to allow the segment to work without support.

Would we have any hybrids now if Toyota decided to skip on the Prius because it received subsidies, or if it didn't get such subsidies?

And Toyota isn't the only one working towards not needing the subsidies. The gen2 Volt costs less to make than the gen1 while improving performance; same with the Leaf.

Yes, CAFE, ZEV, and other accountings are going on to have plug ins show profit by many, including Toyota. They even lobbied CARB to give hydrogen FCEVs more credits so that they would have to build fewer compliance cars than if they were selling BEVs. While working on plug ins not being dependent on subsidies, Toyota sure loves having them piled on their FCEVs. I think every car registered in California is paying an extra $2.00 to help fund hydrogen stations for those few thousand cars.

 

Bottom-Up is fundamentally different from Top-Down. Until that vital business approach is recognized & understood. Posts here will continue to be pointless.

Another major issue is comparing Tesla to legacy automakers. It serves no practical purpose.

 

China will drive the EV market, the government is behind it and they have the largest population in the world and a major importer of oil. The rest of the world will follow. I am not saying China will lead with the development or manufacturing process but could.

 

It is similar, although on a much bigger scale, on how CA led the US into the EV market.
China is taking over that role for the world, but I want to thank CA for taking the lead in the US.

 

I recognize it, but how does bottom-up work in this case without the top-down spurring on the investment to lower battery costs? The PiP and Prime weren't made in a vacuum.

I didn't make a comparison, and if it was taken that way it was a comparison of Tesla's sales model to the independent dealer networks in the US. I was using the auto dealer associations actions against Tesla as an example of how the dealerships could be a hinderance to a car manufacturer that wants to sell a plug in.

The dealers' actions in the southern US in regards to the Prime, are an even more glaring example.

 

Not even close. Wanna try again?

 

You don't change.
You think we all aren't understanding the situation, but are unwilling to engage in a straight up discussion to correct the misunderstanding.
You make a statement expecting us to parse the meaning or do the legwork of understanding it.

Introduce new terms and concepts to the discussion, then define them so there isn't a misunderstanding.
The Difference Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategic Management | Your Business
Toyota is not working bottom up here. If there were, they wouldn't have even made the iQ EV that was based upon conclusions from older research that was done when BEVs were using lead-acid batteries, and NiMH was bleeding edge technology. Nor would they be trying to sell hydrogen cars in a country the size of the US. If Toyota USA was included on the Prime design from the beginning, a larger pack wouldn't have needed to be poorly packaged into the cargo area.

 

i was reading that china is going to stumble over u.s. soy beans. but it was the wsj, so probably skewed.

 

post #40? i'm agreeing with you. without government intervention, we'll still be driving gassers in 20 years.

 

Is this the same government that gave us ethanol?

 

i'm not saying they always do the right thing. although, you might think so if you're a farmer.

if you leave it to people with no government intervention, i think we'd be worse off.

i doubt we would have any alt fuel cars currently.

 

That's called not paying attention. The discussion is about PRODUCT not MANAGEMENT.

Toyota's approach from the beginning has been to deliver a product that's affordable for the masses right from the start. That's why component size, power, and capacity was always limited by production cost. It eliminates dependence on subsidy and provides a clear upgrade path. It also provides opportunity for quick adaptation. That significantly reduces financial & market risk.

This is why the approach with a plug-in Prius was always targeted by Volt enthusiasts, their source of unending torment. GM's decision to take the risk instead by betting the farm on something with a costly & inflexible design has proven a terrible choice. That gamble of rapid market acceptance and rapid battery advancement didn't pay off.

As Prius supporters, we had to endure an onslaught of ridicule & downplay about this approach difference... which is now becoming quite apparent. Toyota didn't rely on tax-credits. Toyota didn't succumb to niche appeal. Toyota stayed true to their mission of emissions & efficiency for mainstream consumers. The result is a product capable of competing directly with the true competition: traditional vehicles.

All along, it should have been a design from GM that would draw high-volume profitable sales. That's what bottom-up is all about. Toyota targeted ordinary consumers, delivering a well-balanced platform which could be easily diversified to a wide product-line. We see that with the Corolla, C-HR, Camry, and RAV4 hybrids... each capable of simple adaptation to provide a plug, as Prius has now proven. The "start from the top" approach with both Two-Mode and Volt resulted in nothing but sales struggle. Whatever you want to call that difference, it clearly didn't reach the masses.

 

You're rewriting history. You know that GM had its back against the wall in 2008, needed a "halo car" for the ensuing bailout and the Voltec was the answer; political football and all. It was an amazing achievement for the time but that was a decade ago and much has been learned since then. The BoltEV with its better battery tech and packaging is just one of the first to benefit from it and lots more about to rollout in China.

These products are needed for the highly necessary credits due to the massive sales/profits of trucks and suv's. As they transition those vehicles to alternative fuel drivetrains as they are beginning to now, they'll have the tech polished and ready to go. Unlike others such as our Subaru or Suzuki who are either scrambling to catch up or dying.

 

You're ignoring history. You know all too well that Volt was not portrayed as a "halo" vehicle. It was pushed as a mainstream offering, hence all the comparisons to Prius. That's why "WHO IS THE MARKET FOR VOLT?" was asked on a continuous basis for years. It wasn't until right before gen-2 reveal that GM finally admitted Volt was really a niche, targeted at enthusiasts. They did everything possible prior to that to avoid "halo" acknowledgement. Even now, there are some who portray Volt to be something for ordinary consumers.

Disproving the "history" is a simple matter of identifying purpose. There's no possible way Volt could have contributed to bailout recovery, since it didn't appeal to GM's own showroom shoppers.

Toyota's effort to rollout hybrid offerings for every vehicle on their showroom floor is has been labeled as "halo". What about that history?

 

"Because the Volt was developed as a "halo car," its original sales goal was ... " https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-14/chevy-s-volt-and-obama-s-green-legacy

Chevy Volt Becomes GM's 'Halo' Car - EVWORLD.COM

GM Says New Volt Is Coming, But It's 'Not A Mass-Market' Vehicle Anymore

"As for the upcoming Bolt EV, it will be "a halo car" for the Chevrolet brand just as the Volt has been. Gesse noted that 70 percent of Volt buyers are new to Chevy." How GM plans to market Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid, Bolt EV electric car (Page 2)

"Jack Nerad, an analyst for Kelley Blue Book, says the Volt is what's referred to in the car business as a "halo car," or an emblem of everything GM is and wants to be."

on and on and on....

 

That confirms exactly what I was stating.

Also, keep in mind is the other sources of image & portrayal. The "fake news" of the time was very different, hence the extensive blogging effort to document it... preventing look back distortion of history later.