You're Wrong About Hydrogen Cars

[Egg-Roll]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your response to someone who mentioned mileage, saying lol what and telling him to read a manual, when his numbers were more inline than your guessed numbers.  Literally Ford's website says 5,000-10,000 miles (which is 8,000-16000km) depend on the age and type of vehicle...and like the escape one, the 5000 miles was from pre-2008 numbers.  I know Toyota is similar (my brother's vehicle after the first 2 years recommends only a yearly oil change).

 

My point being though that you essentially told someone they were wrong (when their numbers were pretty correct) and gave wrong numbers...if you are going off memory, then maybe you shouldn't be telling people who were correct to read the service manual.

Switch km to miles and I would be correct in certain situations right? Last car owned was a pre 08, even looked online maybe due to how fords website is laid out but I only found how to top up oil nothing about months or distance (car sold, obviously the responsible thing was to hand over the owners manual)... However my original line with the lol as you pointed out states RTFM so while I might be wrong with newer cars for mileage and months you've shown that I wasn't exactly wrong with the last car used and that I was right about how one should read the manual instead of believing some random on the internet who many or may not own their exact car... Should mention I prob at least would check the oil at every 5000km at least on that old of a car, it takes all but 30 seconds to do. Equally they only stated months, someone who drives their car for a living or those who complain about how EVs will die on their way home without charging (apparently upwards of 90% of the USA based on everyone whining about range...) clearly wouldn't last the 6 months they stated.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No, Nikola really shouldn't be used in talking terms with Tesla.  Nikola as a company is to put it bluntly like scam of a company (making false claims about technology, products, patents and price points which they didn't have), which is why I found it funny one of the experts she talked to mentioned the company Nikola (as it really takes away from their ability to be called an expert when mentioning a company like Nikola, which literally lied about producing hydrogen at a cheap cost).

 

It's why I'm glad that there wasn't a mention of Nikola in the LTT video (compared to the other Toyota sponsored ones I've seen)

People thought Tesla was the same thing, however I do agree esp after how much GM has said no to things. The only thing that I see them being able to accomplish is producing some trucks and the ones like the original roadster from Tesla they have gone with converting a shell to a EV under their own name, well at least that's what they are currently producing. Overall I don't think they'll last unless they can actually produce something more than a few here and there.

 

For the hydrogen lies, I'll put it bluntly, how can someone claim hydrogen is the future when not even the makers of vehicles can uphold claims of making cheap hydrogen? I doubt it'll actually reach $1/kg without continuous incentives at which point it becomes a tax payers money bleed that could be used to better the transit system and roads...

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They actually used at least one of the graphics/talking points that Physics girl used, which is why it feels as though it was maybe partially funded by Toyota.  It just would be nice to know, like did Toyota reach out to them or did they reach out to Toyota regarding making a "more pro Toyota hydrogen vehicle".  It doesn't matter whether or not the opinion/conclusion was if you don't live in cali then no point in buying it...the disclosure of what Toyota provided them is still important.  Maybe @AlexTheGreatish could clarify regarding this; to help bring some transparency to what Toyota provided.  [Not trying to be uptight, but it does seem as though this had more of Toyota's hands in it to the point that they should be at least listed as a sponsor, or specified as a product review...could be wrong, clarification would be nice]

I don't have time during the week to look into things but I have a feeling that image is part of their PR package for influencers and reviewers to use, the talking points as long as not deceiving is similar to comparing/talking about a Tesla or even Intel etc spewing out their talking points/specs and tech using their images, should mention I skipped the whole section about the car.

[RejZoR]

So much talk about cost of hydrogen with no info on consumption and capacity required. Hyundai Nexo, another hydrogen car for which I have specs at hand has a 6,33 kg hydrogen tank and is good for 380 miles (611 kilometers). To put things into perspective when people might think you need 50+ kilograms of hydrogen, just like you would petrol and multiply that with $16 or whatever the cost was per kilogram of hydrogen.

 

Maybe it's stupid expensive for American standards where petrol is so cheap, but for European prices, it's not that more expensive. It's a tax of being "green" even with EV's that are anything but cheap no matter how you turn it. Plus hydrogen powered cars don't have a weight issues like battery EV's. Chugging around extra half a ton is not insignificant which is another funny thing where people always say "but EV's don't have heavy engine in the front" and then just dismiss the 500kg chungus tugged underneath the car called "a battery".

[LAwLz]

On 1/13/2022 at 8:34 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

They actually used at least one of the graphics/talking points that Physics girl used, which is why it feels as though it was maybe partially funded by Toyota.  It just would be nice to know, like did Toyota reach out to them or did they reach out to Toyota regarding making a "more pro Toyota hydrogen vehicle".  It doesn't matter whether or not the opinion/conclusion was if you don't live in cali then no point in buying it...the disclosure of what Toyota provided them is still important.  Maybe @AlexTheGreatish could clarify regarding this; to help bring some transparency to what Toyota provided.  [Not trying to be uptight, but it does seem as though this had more of Toyota's hands in it to the point that they should be at least listed as a sponsor, or specified as a product review...could be wrong, clarification would be nice]

I quickly looked through the video and this was my reaction as well. I know they don't say it was "sponsored" by Toyota, but it really feels like Toyota played a major role in the making of the video.

My guess is that Toyota basically "sponsored" the video to LTT, as in, spoon fed them information, maybe provided the car and travel expenses etc. But since they didn't hand money directly over to LMG they were not "sponsors".

 

During the WAN show Linus said that he didn't even know Samsung sponsored the Samsung QD-OLED video which I thought was very weird. I thought it was very weird because in the video he says Samsung flew them out (so paid for travel and most likely things like hotel and maybe food as well) as well as provided them with the information they say in the video. 

Not sure about you, but if some manufacturer provides them with equipment for testing, pays for their travel expenses and potentially other surrounding costs, the manufacturer gave them the idea for the video and so on, then I'd say it's a sponsored video even if they do not pay LMG to make it in money.

Maybe that's not what happened and maybe I interpreted his comment on the WAN show incorrectly, but it is very clear that Toyota had some part in the making of this video even though they are not listed as a sponsor, and it makes me question how often that happens.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

During the WAN show Linus said that he didn't even know Samsung sponsored the Samsung QD-OLED video which I thought was very weird. I thought it was very weird because in the video he says Samsung flew them out (so paid for travel and most likely things like hotel and maybe food as well) as well as provided them with the information they say in the video. 

I thought, could be wrong, based on prior videos talking about disclosure was that the script writer and presenter typically aren't told by the people who get the sponsorships to try to keep a less biased thing.  With that said, I didn't have any problems with the Samsung segment..because they were clearly sponsored by Samsung and said sponsored by.  This video is one of the only ones that I felt a bit sketched out about as it seemed just by the way things were talked about (and hitting similar talking points) that this was either like a spotlight video or a semi-sponsored video [which I think either way should be disclosed].  It would be nice if someone like @AlexTheGreatish or @LinusTech could at least set the record straight in terms of Toyota's involvement in the video [because for all I know, they could have just been in the area and Toyota reached out to them with talking point...but lets say Toyota flew them out there and if Toyota paid for the expenses during the shoot then it should be disclosed]  It would be good to know either way for the transparency of the channel.

 

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Maybe it's stupid expensive for American standards where petrol is so cheap, but for European prices, it's not that more expensive. It's a tax of being "green" even with EV's that are anything but cheap no matter how you turn it. Plus hydrogen powered cars don't have a weight issues like battery EV's. Chugging around extra half a ton is not insignificant which is another funny thing where people always say "but EV's don't have heavy engine in the front" and then just dismiss the 500kg chungus tugged underneath the car called "a battery".

The shielding due to the strength required adds to the weight of the vehicle though.  It makes sense when you scale it to truck sized scale (as the protection you need is less the vs the increase in volume), but realistically for consumer vehicles it might not be the payoff people think.  Actually that is what also bothered me about the video, when referring to the truck and saying they could throw batteries in it but it adds mass; but I think that gives people a false impression because people keep using that as a selling point [like the one you are under, to be clear not blaming you].

 

Mirai curb weight: About 1850kg based on the sources I could find [toyota-europe.com]

Tesla Model 3 Long Range:  About 1900kg [depending on year it varies, Tesla website].  So the difference is 50KG

 

This also comes a lot into play when driving along hilly roads.  Since the Mirai will have a much smaller battery, and thus also smaller charging capacity they can't utilize regenerative breaking as much as other BEV's,

 

At least looking at the animation, it almost seems the layout is similar to the hybrid vehicles...which means you lose a whole lot of trunk space.  Looking at trunk volume

 

Mirai rear trunk: 127L

Tesla Model 3: 561L

 

Visually it makes sense as well, looking at the stock photos of the Mirai's trunk....although looks like the 2021 model might have more room...so unless they minimize the volume of the technology, and the weight of it; it won't make as much sense as a BEV.

[AlexTheGreatish]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I quickly looked through the video and this was my reaction as well. I know they don't say it was "sponsored" by Toyota, but it really feels like Toyota played a major role in the making of the video.

My guess is that Toyota basically "sponsored" the video to LTT, as in, spoon fed them information, maybe provided the car and travel expenses etc. But since they didn't hand money directly over to LMG they were not "sponsors".

Toyota certainly helped but did not sponsor the video.  They provided the car and covered some of the travel, but this is very different from sponsoring the video since they had zero input on the content of the video and didn't get to see/review any of it beforehand. The graphics are available to anyone on the Toyota press site, it just makes sense to use them instead of spending a couple days recreating the exact same thing.  I did interview engineers that are responsible for the design of the fuel cell, but again this is very different than being given talking points by a marketing department.

 

I'm the one that initiated the video and without their help the information would have been nearly identical.  Being able to go to LA and use the car allowed us to make it a lot more visually interesting than just being a talking head in the studio.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, AlexTheGreatish said:

Toyota certainly helped but did not sponsor the video.  They provided the car and covered some of the travel, but this is very different from sponsoring the video since they had zero input on the content of the video and didn't get to see/review any of it beforehand. The graphics are available to anyone on the Toyota press site, it just makes sense to use them instead of spending a couple days recreating the exact same thing.  I did interview engineers that are responsible for the design of the fuel cell, but again this is very different than being given talking points by a marketing department.

 

I'm the one that initiated the video and without their help the information would have been nearly identical.  Being able to go to LA and use the car allowed us to make it a lot more visually interesting than just being a talking head in the studio.

I quite enjoyed the video - and very interesting information.

 

However, I would suggest that in future with videos like this, even though it's not "sponsored" in the technical sense that your other sponsored videos are, it would be an act of good faith to disclose these biases at the beginning of the video (Eg: a simple banner that says "Vehicle and travel provided by Toyota. Info graphics available publicly on Toyota Press Site", etc).

 

It will help to alleviate concerns like you've seen here, where people make assumptions about how much involvement a company had in the video.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, AlexTheGreatish said:

Toyota certainly helped but did not sponsor the video.  They provided the car and covered some of the travel, but this is very different from sponsoring the video since they had zero input on the content of the video and didn't get to see/review any of it beforehand. The graphics are available to anyone on the Toyota press site, it just makes sense to use them instead of spending a couple days recreating the exact same thing.  I did interview engineers that are responsible for the design of the fuel cell, but again this is very different than being given talking points by a marketing department.

 

I'm the one that initiated the video and without their help the information would have been nearly identical.  Being able to go to LA and use the car allowed us to make it a lot more visually interesting than just being a talking head in the studio.

Thanks for the response and insight into the making of this video. 

 

I hope you understand that as a viewer, it is hard to tell what is and isn't you repeating what for example some marketing exec told you, and what information is coming from nonbiased sources.

 

I tend to think that more disclosures are better than less. If Toyota paid for travel, lended equipment for the video, and provided some of the information used in the video about their product then I think it would be good to disclose that in the same way you would disclose a sponsor. 

 

What you describe as a "sponsored video", where the manufacturer can control what goes into the video, is what I'd call just a straight up ad.

 

This is not some issue I got with this video in particular but with the channel as a whole. 

I don't think I am alone in this either as I have seen several people, including those in this thread, question how much involvement the vendor had with the creation of the video. I think it would be good to disclose all involvement even if it's things like paying for travel and providing info. It's easy for you and the people involved to know exactly where the lines are drawn, but it's not easy for the viewers to know where the lines are drawn behind the scene. 

[danwat1234]

I really enjoyed this deep-dive into Hydrogen- battery/electric vs pure battery-electric. 1 thing missed are maintenance differences, primarily high-end air filter replacements needed for the fuel cells to avoid contamination. 

The reason why it only does 0-60 in 9 seconds is because the 1.2KWh lithium-ion battery is very small to power the electric drive. It can only provide so much juice before voltage sag becomes too much. Fuel-cells in the gen 2 might be able to provide 100KW of real-time power, maybe. Just a guess. How many seconds to ramp to full output of 140HP or so? So, the rest is up to the traction battery. If they had put in super-capacitors they could potentially increase the peak performance drastically, at expense of user not knowing this is a very limited time-duration before returning to slowmo. That is why the total HP is sub 200. Not because of motor or inverter cost. Battery/fuel cell output limitation IMO, 

[Sauron]

On 1/11/2022 at 7:51 PM, Kentlowt said:

One thing not mentioned in this video and glossed over by a lot of supporter of electrically charged cars is the efficiency of the electrical grid. The average efficiency of the grid in the US is in the 30% range this means 70%ish of the electricity generated never makes it to the consumer. This means getting the electricity generated closer to the “appliance” in this case the car reaps huge rewards in efficiency and a lower environmental impact.

It's still far higher than the efficiency of delivering hydrogen fuel and then converting that fuel to power in the car itself. To make it even remotely comparable you'd have to deliver hydrogen through pipework and if you think the electrical grid has problems what makes you think a whole new gas piping system would be better?

 

Worse still - how do you think hydrogen is produced? In most cases it's through electrolysis, a wasteful process that uses electricity to extract hydrogen from water. So basically you'd be generating electricity anyway with whatever emissions that entails, converting it to hydrogen in an inefficient process, transporting that hydrogen inefficiently through tankers or at best an expensive piping system to filling stations, then burning that hydrogen in an inefficient combustion engine inside the car.

 

The one advantage hydrogen has is that refueling is potentially much faster and it doesn't require expensive lithium batteries.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

The one advantage hydrogen has is that refueling is potentially much faster and it doesn't require expensive lithium batteries.

Yes, and that really only comes to play when you start driving over like 350km a day (and don't have a place to charge at home).  If you have a place to charge at home, then the benefits of hydrogen really start to drop.

 

A side note regarding the batteries though...since hydrogen can't supply the needed power instantly, there is an onboard battery that is used for it...which means while the battery is smaller and will cost less to replace, it will still need to be replaced eventually.  If it's used for all the acceleration, I could imagine it might need replacing more than the hybrid batteries as well (which was rated at 8 years)...which was around $5k.  A lot less than the $20k required by Tesla

 

Okay, was a bit bored and looked up the numbers (2019 one since Toyota's website blocks me from downloading the 2021...due to my country).  The fuel cell and battery have an 8 year warranty (or 100,000 miles whichever is first).  You also have the added cost of checking the fuel cell system, replacing the fuel cell coolant, fuel cell air filter, etc...so the overall maintenance might be about the same cost as a BEV (but that's just my guess...we will only know once hydrogen vehicles are on the market for an extended time)