Editor’s Note: This is an excellent comment we received on CleanTechnica last week that I thought would be nice to share with EV Obsession & CleanTechnica readers. Enjoy! (Slight modifications implemented to fit our style guide and to arrange it more like an article.)
By Carl Sparre
They don’t want to sell you an electric car, because they will make less profit from parts, servicing, and sales of their combustion models.
If they sell you an electric car, they have to concede that combustion engine cars are pollution emitters.
They know there’s a tipping point in the market, beyond which sales of combustion cars will drop quickly. Their goal is to reach that tipping point as slowly as possible.
They know that lithium batteries are only expensive because they are not produced in nearly the same volume as gearboxes, fuel injectors, crankshafts, and spark plugs. By delaying market growth, they can maintain the fossil fuel economic advantage a little longer.
They know that lithium batteries are limited in energy density because they have not undergone decades of refinement, as have gearboxes, fuel injectors, crankshafts, and spark plugs. By delaying market growth, they can maintain the distance-between-refuelling advantage a little longer.
They know that once you’ve experienced the joy of driving (in) a silent, vibration-free, rocket-fast, odourless car that never needs petrol, wild horses won’t drag you back to fossil fuels.
The above reasons explain the following:
The Nissan Leaf has no ‘frunk.’ Pull the hood and you see a host of stuff that looks like it needs servicing.
The boot of a Leaf is the oddest shape — it’s not remotely flat. There’s a wall between the hole where the fuel tank would normally be and the rear folding seats. Inside that wall is where they unthinkingly stuffed most of the batteries.
The Leaf has a 150-km range on a full charge. Just low enough to discourage most buyers.
The servicing schedule on the Leaf is the same as a combustion car. At service 1 (10,000 km), they do nothing other than inspect.
I have not seen a single ad on TV (in Sydney) for the Leaf, yet many other Nissan model ads go to air.
But here’s the number one reason they’re dreading the EV revolution: It’s all about brand. Let’s assume that Nissan were to release a “Leaf III,” at the same time as Tesla releases the Model 3 and, let’s also assume that the cars have equivalent range, performance, style, and features. Which car will people buy?
People concerned about Earth’s rising CO2 levels, or city pollution, or oil money destined for the Middle East, who buy the Tesla Model 3 will know they’re supporting a company which is part of the solution, not part of the problem. They know that friends who see the brand on their new car know it’s electric without having to ask. The Tesla will have instantly recognisable status. The traditional motoring brands have no way to put distance between logo and exhaust pipe. Imagine yourself on the road in your Nissan Leaf III and the car ahead is a hulking combustion-engined Nissan, billowing fumes. How do you feel now, supporting the company that produced that monstrosity?
If I were in charge of strategy for one of the incumbent manufacturers, I’d be immediately looking for a way to take what has value from my brand, yet divorce it completely from what will soon have the stigma of smoking cigarettes in a kindergarten. Don’t believe me? Just watch. When you see ads for “Nissan Electric,” an all new company (with a stylish new logo) sponsored by, yet autonomous to, the old “Nissan,” it signals that the new era in motoring has arrived.
Good reasoning. It might explain why Ghosn made those stupid comments about a 200 mile range car coming that killed sales of the 84 mile range. On the other hand, they kept the 2016 model leaf pretty well secret until it was officially announced, and it seems like Ghosn really did want to sell a lot more Leafs, at least when the Leaf started… I suspect he may truly be behind the product but there are a lot of factions within Nissan that prevent him from pushing it too hard without being somehow ousted from the company.
It’s also true that the Leaf has done a lot more good for the planet than the Tesla has, at least so far. Ie there are a lot more Leafs on the road than Teslas. According to http://e360.yale.edu/feature/nissans_carlos_ghosn_seeks_revenge_for_the_electric_car/2398/ Nissan invested $5 billion in the production of the Leaf – half their research budget for 2007-2012. That’s a pretty huge investment. So of all the big ICE auto companies, I think Nissan deserves the most credit for trying to spark an EV revolution even though they could and should be doing more.
I also don’t think it’s fair to say that Nissan is holding back the range of EVs in order to slow the EV revolution. Teslas offer three times the range of the Leaf for 3 times the price. Yes, EVs would become cheaper with scaled up battery production, but asking a big ICE company to invest billions building some giant battery factory 4 or 5 years ago to reduce battery prices on the hope that EVs would become a big enough thing to pay for that investment seems a little far fetched from a business standpoint. Building battery capacity takes time and it has to be clear there’s a market for it. Now that’s clear, and now we’re getting capacity scaling.
Fair call Dragon. Now that I see my comment in article format, I can see I was unfair to Nissan. I read the other day about a Tesla driving from Sydney to Melbourne (900km+) in 12 hours with three supercharger stops – now I have a clear case of Tesla envy. In particular, it’s unfair to compare the battery pack in my Leaf, to the volume output of Telsa’s yet to start Gigafactory, and it’s unfair to compare the afordable Leaf with the luxury priced Model S.
Good design however, isn’t so costly, and it’s clear that Tesla are designing as though their life depends upon it. The ICE manufacturers seem to have set their sights on mediochre.
“Nissan invested $5 billion in the production of the Leaf – half their research budget for 2007-2012. That’s a pretty huge investment.”
-Holy cow.
Yes, I think Carlos sees the future and wants to be a leader in it.
I’m curious now how much BMW put into the BMW i program.
Their vast investment in ICE technology is enough of a reason for incumbents to resist electrification. Companies do not voluntarily cannibalise their existing value, so it should not surprise anyone that they made little attempt to push the BEV’s bottleneck – battery production – in the right directions.
Minimum effort was their optimal strategy, and still is while the disruption is small.
Ultimately, the better driving and ownership experience of BEVs will be what kills ICE. There are of course other factors helping this along, one being toxic emissions standards.
Evidently, meeting them is already hard enough that cheating is seen as an attractive alternative, despite the risks. Meanwhile, BEVs are already at the finish line; you can’t beat zero.
“[ICE] will soon have the stigma of smoking cigarettes in a kindergarten.”
Possibly the best analogy on the internet today.
I disagree that they have to admit the EV is better to sell it. They are different tools for different purposes and the EV will have a place in the future. Right now and in the reasonably close future, you cannot use EVs to do everything an ICE car can do. Period…even with massive subsidies and incentives and no profit.
Also, let’s not forget that Elon can’t build a car right now that most people can afford, let alone millions of them. Besides, is there any way that generating enough electricity to charge the millions of EVs you want to put on the road instantly could cause its own problems? And mining/building and recycling/disposing of these millions of batteries isn’t a picnic either.
I may buy a Model 3 when it arrives (2 years late) because it could be the perfect tool for my commute, but I want to note I will not if it has those stupid FW doors. If I do, It will be bought on its merits not because of my religion.