Toyota telling it like it is

[Flatcoat]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/toyota-warns-very-big-challenge-created-zev-mandate

Thankfully someone can see the idiocy of trying to dictate what people should buy. This is what comes of Govts outsourcing decisions to unelected quangos such as the CCC. 

[MC1216]

I agree if a government says it's a good idea it usually isn't.

The 2035 or 2030 madate whichever target is flavour of the month is going to be pushed back...EV sales in the biggest market in Europe,Germany are falling like a stone and companies like VW Audi and BMW are pushing their own government to roll back on this date.

 

[Haliotis]

Just lately we haven’t heard any more about the government’s intention to impose penalties on car dealerships who fail to reach a given percentage of EV sales per year.  Is this threat still going ahead, or has the government recognised that the buyers are king, and not obliged to purchase an EV if they prefer not to do so - dealership sales people can suggest, but have no control over what a buyer decides?

[koji]

Very sensible article, and very sensible man, Nakata San.

“We never forget that real customer demand is the basis for what we do,” he says, hinting that hybrid models, rather than EVs, is what buyers want.

 

Amen

 

[Flatcoat]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Just lately we haven’t heard any more about the government’s intention to impose penalties on car dealerships who fail to reach a given percentage of EV sales per year.  Is this threat still going ahead, or has the government recognised that the buyers are king, and not obliged to purchase an EV if they prefer not to do so - dealership sales people can suggest, but have no control over what a buyer decides?

That is the point. It isn’t a threat. It is already enshrined in law through the members of the unelected Climate Change Committee that no one has ever voted for. The government is dictating what cars can or cannot be bought. A bit like the communism dictating who could by a Lada or Trabant that we all used to shake our heads at. The penalty is on the manufacturer but what the dimwit politicians don’t get (but then again with Milibrain and Kneeler in charge of policy is it any wonder) those penalties are paid by customers! You and me! 

[Flatcoat]

27 minutes ago, koji said:

Very sensible article, and very sensible man, Nakata San.

“We never forget that real customer demand is the basis for what we do,” he says, hinting that hybrid models, rather than EVs, is what buyers want.

 

Amen

 

Exactly! Business make what people want or need to buy. They are not run on communist 5 year plans making millions of unwanted widgets simply to meet an arbitrary politicians soviet style target. 

[Haliotis]

Sorry Adrian, but it is a threat - a threat to the dealerships, because they [the dealers] cannot decide what their customers will buy.  They can recommend and encourage, but the buyer makes the decision - not the dealer, or even the government or any bodies working for them.

Come the deadline day, there will be many thousands of used ICE cars still in excellent condition and available for purchase - the forecourts are full of them already.

The cut-off date for the sale of ICE cars only concerns new vehicles - will the government change things to include the banning of the sale of used ICE cars?  Dare they risk a backlash of such a ruling?

[Mojo1010]

The previous govt made an absolute mess of the country, there really should be some kind of accountability. They scrapped the grants for EV vehicle and home charger and expect people to take up ev with the current infrastructure.

The quota % will be changed if it's found to be not viable later on. 

This new govt have a mountain of a job to slowly make things a little better. 

[Flatcoat]

2 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Sorry Adrian, but it is a threat - a threat to the dealerships, because they [the dealers] cannot decide what their customers will buy.  They can recommend and encourage, but the buyer makes the decision - not the dealer, or even the government or any bodies working for them.

Come the deadline day, there will be many thousands of used ICE cars still in excellent condition and available for purchase - the forecourts are full of them already.

The cut-off date for the sale of ICE cars only concerns new vehicles - will the government change things to include the banning of the sale of used ICE cars?  Dare they risk a backlash of such a ruling?

My ex sold cars for years so know how dealers work. Many are giving up their franchise because the new vehicle ranges are vastly reduced. Ford have gone from 13 models to 5 ranges in the past few years. Selling used is the only way they can entice customers and make money. 

[Flatcoat]

2 hours ago, Mojo1010 said:

The previous govt made an absolute mess of the country, there really should be some kind of accountability. They scrapped the grants for EV vehicle and home charger and expect people to take up ev with the current infrastructure.

The quota % will be changed if it's found to be not viable later on. 

This new govt have a mountain of a job to slowly make things a little better. 

Dream on, Labour are even more anti ICE car than the previous govt. the quota isn’t viable now and never will be. Personally I think Toyota, Stellantis and others should simply say they are closing their UK factories and pulling out. That will shake them up. People simply do not want EV’s - they do not meet people’s needs. 

[AndyN01]

I've a radical idea....

Let the consumer spend their money on whatever they want to meet their needs and let the manufacturers choose what to build to meet that demand.

OR....

Dictate what "we" are allowed to have and provide it at an affordable cost.

We might all catch a lift on the pigs that are flying past 😃.

I wonder who is going to make mega money out of the current plans/ideas etc. and, therefore, who is really pulling the strings?

 

 

[Cyker]

EVs could be good but the tech just isn't ready - If they want us in EVs, they need to stop telling is they are perfectly suitable for everyone's needs (when they are demonstrably not by a long shot) and MAKE them suitable!

Funding universities and R&D to get these breakthrough batteries (or alternatives) that they keep promising us is only 5 years away (At this rate we'll see nuclear fusion before we see decent batteries  ) to market would be a good start, and also doing something to improve the ridiculous situation with current charging networks (Or notworks more like), where they are randomly incompatible with certain cars despite all adhering to the same standard, or stand faulty for months with nobody bothering to repair them, and still requiring an app or account to avoid punitive charge-pricing.

If they really want people in EVs, they need to make them at least as good as normal vehicles, if not significantly better - There's a good reason diesel took off much more strongly than EVs.

Nobody that needs a car gives a toss about how environmentally friendly they are - If that mattered significantly, they'd be using bus, bike or tube.

People who have cars need them for their primary purpose - TRANSPORT. They want efficient, convenient, and reliable transport. That's partly why diesels took off, as they are (or were before they were butchered) good at all these things, but EVs, tend to be worse, and why would anyone pay more for a car that has worse utility than what they have??

 

What they need to aim for is what I've always been saying - minimum 300 miles of *real* range and ubiquitous charging in every bay in every retail park, so people can charge their cars at cheap subsidised rates while they do their shopping so they aren't wasting hours of their lives every week twiddling their thumbs and drinking overpriced coffee waiting for the car to charge.

[Flatcoat]

^^^^ absolutely agree. People buy technology that improves their lives. EV’s do not. 

[AndyN01]

16 hours ago, Cyker said:

......

Funding universities and R&D to get these breakthrough batteries (or alternatives) that they keep promising us is only 5 years away (At this rate we'll see nuclear fusion before we see decent batteries  ) to market would be a good start......

 

"Breakthroughs" come from research that begins with pure science, not something funded by someone who is looking for a big financial reward and skews everything towards the great God....Greed.

That sort of research has, pretty much by definition, got to be funded by Governments looking to expand and develop knowledge for the "greater good" and nothing to do with turning a profit.

But that's not the World/culture we live in so what could or should have been researched decades ago to move the knowledge and understanding forward has been absent and now we're trying to play catch up.

And yes, when there's an EV that does 300+ miles in the freezing cold with all the heating, wipers etc. etc. on without worry, recharges in 5 minutes and can do that at any charger, anywhere, maybe it'd suit my needs. Until then it doesn't so it's irrelevant to me.

 

[Haliotis]

Fully agree with you, Andy.  The UK government policy is now to meet the demands of the environmentalists, with opposition parties vying for power by making increasingly rash promises they cannot possibly keep - and government policy is now based on rulings where the government are relying on technology to arrive at developments which are currently imaginary.

For an analogy, think of a parent having a suit tailor-made for their son’s 18th birthday, when the son is still only 5 years of age.  It is that ridiculous!

[AJones]

I can't see what all the fuss is about, yes there's a ramp up in requirements for EV production and many manufacturers are achieving it. Toyota lags somewhat behind other manufacturers on EVs because it focused on hybrids and hydrogen, hydrogen in passenger vehicles hasn't worked, so it focuses on hybrids because it doesn't yet have a wide range of EVs to offer, but it has some EVs in China and is launching more PHEVs.

The government wasn't banning all new vehicles with an engine from 2030, it was requiring that by 2030 new cars must have significant electric range, so they needed to be plug-in hybrids as a minimum.

So when we get to 2030, it's likely you can still buy a new car with an engine, but it will be a plug-in hybrid, so just like your regular hybrid but with a decent amount of electric range and the ability to plug it in.

That's hardly the end of the world is it? Put your average Toyota hybrid driver in a PHEV and they wouldn't notice much difference, it spends more time in EV mode, uses less fuel and you can plug it in when it suits you. What's the problem?

[Mojo1010]

Can think of a few problems right now, phev cost more to buy than a hybrid and it will not be available in an Aygo or Yaris hatchback size. For those that don't have a home charger, it's expensive to charge up, or lug the extra size car with added weight on petrol consumption.  

2.0 corolla hatch has a small boot, put a bigger Battery in there, it will be a smaller boot than the Yaris. So if the quota and target are still set as it is, I will be looking to buy a few used hybrids. The used hybrid market will spike in price like the past few years, bigger spikes. 

[Haliotis]

It is going to take quite a few years for fossil fuelled vehicles to become extinct, and for industrial and domestic premises to become non-reliant on natural gas.

But, when at some distant date in the future, when (if?) all the plans for clean renewable energy have been achieved - what happens if global warming hasn’t been stabilised and, in fact, is still rising?  What would be the next steps to resolve the problem?  Because there are no guarantees that  current plans are going to be successful!

[mpm235]

Global warming is a load of cobblers. Its not real. Its a social contagion

[Flatcoat]

4 hours ago, AJones said:

I can't see what all the fuss is about, yes there's a ramp up in requirements for EV production and many manufacturers are achieving it. Toyota lags somewhat behind other manufacturers on EVs because it focused on hybrids and hydrogen, hydrogen in passenger vehicles hasn't worked, so it focuses on hybrids because it doesn't yet have a wide range of EVs to offer, but it has some EVs in China and is launching more PHEVs.

The government wasn't banning all new vehicles with an engine from 2030, it was requiring that by 2030 new cars must have significant electric range, so they needed to be plug-in hybrids as a minimum.

So when we get to 2030, it's likely you can still buy a new car with an engine, but it will be a plug-in hybrid, so just like your regular hybrid but with a decent amount of electric range and the ability to plug it in.

That's hardly the end of the world is it? Put your average Toyota hybrid driver in a PHEV and they wouldn't notice much difference, it spends more time in EV mode, uses less fuel and you can plug it in when it suits you. What's the problem?

You simply don’t get it. By 2030 the UK requires 80% of new car sales to be EV’s. That is pure Battery electric. How do you force people to buy something they do not want and cannot afford? Most major car manufacturers are having to rethink their EV plans due to falling sales and losing shed loads of money. Yes I have a PHEV but I do not want an EV - they simply do not meet my needs, even if I could afford one. To give some perspective to climate change allegedly caused by cows farting and humans driving ICE cars: about 3000 years ago it is very well evidenced there was a catastrophic weather event across much of Europe and beyond. One of the consequences caused the level of Lake Constance (one of Europe’s biggest inland lakes) to rise substantially. This caused settlements on the lake shore to have to relocate to higher ground and the famous lake villages on stilts to recently. In the 1920’s there was the drought in North America leading to the huge dust bowls as farmland dried out and farmers went bust. Only very recently we were being told global warming was destroying the Australian coral reefs. You don’t hear anything about that anymore because they have inconveniently recovered. The alarmist catastrophising of unusual weather events is not proof of man made climate change. Of course 90% of scientists agree with climate change, if they don’t say so they lose their funding and jobs. 

[Haliotis]

Earth has undergone many temperature extremes long before Man “arrived” on our planet.  If the scientists could fathom out how and what caused these historical extremes and, possibly, come up with a more educated guess for the reason(s), rather than conveniently blaming people and creating politically motivated actions which may well turn out to be a dreadful waste of public money.

Perhaps, when things go irrecoverably wrong, the last words to be uttered will be, “I told you so!”

[koji]

Difficult topic.

It's undeniable the weather is changing.

It's undeniable too that Europe is responsible for only 8% of CO2 worldwide.

From that small percentage, how much are the cars responsible? 30% of that 8%? 10%?

Diesel and petrol cars are needed, because WE, people, need them.

 

On the other hand, I don't see any politician/burocrat forbidding the massive tourism arriving by airplanes...

...Spain expects 90 million tourists this year, many of them arriving by plane...

This is a leasure time activity, not real need.

I don't want tourism to be banned, but I see very different criteria here.

 

[AndyN01]

29 minutes ago, koji said:

Difficult topic.

It's undeniable the weather is changing.

It's undeniable too that Europe is responsible for only 8% of CO2 worldwide.

From that small percentage, how much are the cars responsible? 30% of that 8%? 10%?

Diesel and petrol cars are needed, because WE, people, need them.

 

On the other hand, I don't see any politician/burocrat forbidding the massive tourism arriving by airplanes...

...Spain expects 90 million tourists this year, many of them arriving by plane...

This is a leasure time activity, not real need.

I don't want tourism to be banned, but I see very different criteria here.

 

Somewhat a different topic but, as I said earlier....

I wonder who is going to make (or lose) mega money out of the current plans/ideas etc. and, therefore, who is really pulling the strings?

Who in, say, Spain is going to suggest that holiday flights are banned because of environmental impact as the "cost" to the country would, I imagine, be catastrophic.

Or maybe "we" could be all righteous and simply ban all goods from countries that do not meet "our" environmental aspirations (or, perhaps, democracy, child labour, H&S, workers rights, equal rights etc. etc....)? Oh, hang on.... that'd mean we don't get to buy pretty much anything and everything we currently have. So that's a non starter.

How about talk about the biggest polluters but don't actually do anything about them and maybe do some sort of "signalling" that "looks good" but might just bankrupt the country to show we're committed to the cause - however insignificant that change might make. 😇.

Follow the money........

 

[Haliotis]

“Somewhat a different topic….”  True, but it is all linked up to the same subject matter.  That is to say, climate change was emphasised by the scientists, which stirred up the environmentalists, which woke up the activists, which, assisted by the media, levelled blame on fossil fuels and ICE cars, which has produced laws to radically alter how people will be able to go about their everyday lives.

And all this without publicly discussing to what degree Nature may be playing its part.

What is obvious is, whilst climate change can be blamed on human behaviour, there are all the money-making ideas that government-driven entrepreneurs can dream up, and the activists can inflict their protests on ordinary folk.  As we are now witnessing.   BUT, if it was proven that the changes were due to activity by our Sun and natural weather patterns that have historically occurred over millions of years,  then  the environmentalists and the activists would simply be a sophisticated product of the simple, pious sandwich-board protesters proclaiming that “The End Is Nigh”.  

[AJones]

4 hours ago, Haliotis said:

That is to say, climate change was emphasised by the scientists, which stirred up the environmentalists, which woke up the activists, which, assisted by the media, levelled blame on fossil fuels and ICE cars, which has produced laws to radically alter how people will be able to go about their everyday lives.

What radical changes to how people go about their everyday lives? Driving around in a car which runs on electric rather than using petrol or diesel?

Go back 100 years and most people didn't have cars at all, they walked more, used bicycles, buses, trams, charabancs, trains. Most towns and cities had trams, even small villages were on the railway network.

Since then car ownership has massively increased, most trams were shut-down, the railway network was massively cut back by Beeching in the 1960s, bus routes and usage collapsed.

The last 100 years has seen radical changes in how people get around as they go about their daily lives, but the current changes, keeping the car but simply switching from fossil fuels to electric is not remotely radical, frankly it is nothing compared to the changes our parents, grandparents and great grand parents lived though.