The crash involved enough energy to cut the car in half and send it into the air. The front half hit a Civic and inflicted most of the damage to the top half of that car, and the rear got wedged about 4 feet up between to buildings. This was a severe accident, and the forces involved are probably only considered when designing high performance race cars. For any street car to not catch fire, is more about luck than design. it's more likely with a plug in because of the battery's size and placement, but that might be mitigated by the fact they aren't nearly as likely to burst into a large fire right away like a liquid or gas fuel spill. Reports had the Tesla doing 100mph, by may have slowed some if it was trying to turn at the time.
That fire has multiple facets - good find! #1 there are what - nearly a quarter million leafs driving around the landscape to date? This is the 1 & only fire originating in a leaf. Best of all, with no gasoline or hydrogen or other compressed flammable, the driver was able to get out safely - with enough spare time to go to the other side and remove his valuables. #2 the owner of that car posted. He said the fire originated from inside & under the dash. (ie the same electric components you'd have in ANY car/truck) The reason that's good is that the batteries are underneath almost everything & towards the rear of the car, so the lithium pack was not the cause. SWEET! But I'll bet all that wire/solder/plastic dash stunk to high heaven ... whew! right! .... and if he'd NOT been stupidly doing 100 without a seatbelt? Amazingly, other idiot 100 mph Tesla drivers have survived horrific traffic accidents - but they were wearing their seatbelts - as were the NON-at-fault Tesla accident victims, all of whom were able to surprisingly walk away. Let's all hope that the few hundred hydrogen cars that come out of Japan Toyota never have to experience that kind of trama - because Toyota's hydrigen car failed DOT requirements that allow rescuers to access the crashed vehicle in a prudent manner. But Toyota manage to get waivers so that it didn't have to comply ... . .
Actually - the hydrogen automotive future began about ½ century ago 1966 GM Electrovan. courtesy GM Media Archives At this rate - & a whole lot more taxpayer money .... maybe just10 more years? .... .
I guess that's the difference between GM and Toyota. Where is mass produced GM FCV? They didn't have carbon fiber H2 tanks back then. Nor were they bulletproof tested. You seem to be against how GM handled hydrogen fuel cell but instead taking it out on Toyota.
After spending a whole lot of money, GM realized FCEVs weren't any closer to being ready for commercial development. They opted to share their numerous FCEV patents with Honda in order to stay abreast of any FCEV developments while not losing so much cash. There are more car companies not developing FCEVs than there are ones that are. While they were in the game, were GM's FCEVs sorely lacking in comparison to the others?
Where s Toyota's I'm impressed Toyota has gotten to this level of testing. And I look forward to seeing the results over the next few years. But let's not pretend the Mirai fits any sort of definition of mass produced.
What came out of the SuperCar billions of dollar investment? We need to separate who delivers and if the tax payer investment make the actual products. Toyota delivers with both the Prius and Mirai. Frustration expressed here should be directed at GM, not Toyota or FCV. You saw their rollout plan to 2050. They clearly said Mirai marks the beginning.
That, in my mind, is a much better comparison. How long do you think it will be before the Mirai gets abandoned?
GM had a fleet FCEV Equinoxes rolling around the same time as Toyota had their Highlander ones. They probably could have put out a FCEV now if they really wanted too, but why do so when their partner has a stronger incentive to do so. GM simply doesn't have the access to the Japanese market like Honda or Toyota does. Do not forget, for those two, that market is the important one in regards to these FCEVs. California is a side show that just helps them with it. With less R&D going to fuel cells, GM can focus on improving the Volt, other hybrids, and a 200 mile BEV for the nation. At a future date, I think we will see fuel cells in cars. i do not think we will surmount the hurdles of getting a hydrogen infrastructure in place for the US. We'll be using some liquid fuel for them. Well, Toyota can sell 3000 cars, and then needs a redesign or another waiver to continue selling the current one.
EV1 had politics surrounding the car who were against it, The Mirai has politics surrounding the car who are are for it.
Who again is for the Mirai? Oh, that's right the fracking/natural gas and oil companies. Yay! <sarcasm off>
I think the cost is the key. Toyota was able to lower it to $58k and not lose money selling Mirai. If GM or Honda can do the same or even lower cost, let's step it up. The new Honda FCV would be shown very soon. We'll see the price tag on it. GM FCV is supposedly to come in 2020. There is a path from solar to hydrogen through photo catalyst. The same way there is with photo voltaic. Let's not pretend there is no fracked natural gas and coal in the electricity. Fossil fuel dominates in the US grid. Not sure about where you are at.
Interesting, I have never heard that before. Do you have any references to that? Edit---- This isn't from Toyota, they seem pretty tight lipped, but this estimate from last December is that Toyota looses $62k to $124k per vehicle. Not very close to an effective cost. How Much Money Does The 2016 Toyota Mirai Lose? A Lot, Perhaps
It is 5 years old but they did what they said they would (if Fed tax credit did not expire). It is from another discussion. “Our target is, we don’t lose money with introduction of the vehicle,” Masuda told Bloomberg. “Production cost should be covered within the price of the vehicle.”
Well, my reference above is less than a year old (added via edit while you were responding). This may be another example of Toyota shooting for a goal it couldn't achieve. Nothing wrong with that, it is good to have high goals. Just admit it when you fail to reach them.
