Featured California's Best Selling Cars for 2022

All it took was...

• A government decree that soon, all ICE vehicles will no longer be sold in California. (that's the common interpretation of poorly worded decrees.

• A 1/2 of a Trillion dollars for government funded program to build a support network and incentives so that BEVs can be used to travel across the USA to vacation spots like Yellowstone.

• A partnership with Toyota way back in 2010, when Tesla had only produced 1000 roadsters. Toyota had already produced the Prius PHEV and marketed it, but Toyota had restrictions on the batteries that they could use. Toyota provided Tesla with needed capital and expertise. Tesla was not encumbered by the settlement that Toyota agreed to when Chevron sued over patent infringement when the Prius was first introduced. It was able to use Toyota technology mated with larger battery packs.

And it ignores the fact that when Tesla started building Toyota's order of 2600 Rav 4 EVs, there were still 500 of the 1500 first generation RAV4EVs still on the road that were built / sold / leased in the late 1990s.

 

Nothing short of phenomenal. An American success story that has brought petty jealousies to life.
I wonder if ford, Edison, Disney, et al suffered the same slings and arrows

 

Which one is more credible? Mine came from .Gov.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021)
And t says, (in part)

I suspect that the difference between our numbers is that PEW only reported on the direct allotment for just EVSE buildout. The Gov page has all the infrastructure parts that are boosting the viability of EVs in a large country. Subsidies, tax credits/deductions for BEVs and the infrastructure to build them, electric grid enhancements, etc.

Since post #4 thought that five billion dollars was something worthy of a smiley, allow me to remind you ...

 

The new funding for light electric vehicles in the infrastructure bill is $30.7 Billion of which $7.5B is for charging infrastructure in the next 5 years. The rest subsidizes manufacturing and tax credits on BEVs and PHEVs, with amounts contingent on manufacturing in North America. This has already brought plans for car and battery plants, lithium extraction, and lithium processing to north America.

This is one of the smallest line items. Why am I expected to pay for clean water, grid infrastructure, high speed internet, when 0 of these dollars will make it to my city because we have already payed for them. We desperately need a bypass interstate highway, but the $100B of new roads doesn't include it, despite we are the only city nearly our size without a bypass.

The charging infrastructure and plug-in subsidies are probably the only items in the bills that will be returned in my tax payer dollars. Eventually we will get less pollution from the gulf coast refineries blowing over the city. Still I'm glad something passed that will help convert texas to more plug-ins, the number here have trippled between the start of 2020 and june of 2022, and it is accelerating. 27% are phevs, 73% bevs so some infrastructure will help fund L2 chargers for phevs in other cities in the state that have not built enough.

 

if not for tesla, there wouldn't be any bev's being made. they have forced nearly every mfg into the game.
billions in r&d that would not have happened. and how about this for a benefit:

It doesn’t take that many electric cars to improve public health

 

In 2010, Toyota had millions of hybrids on the road world wide. By 2012 they were selling PHEVs. There were Prius modified into PHEV by their owners on the road before Tesla built a single car. Toyota had publicly announced their backing for EV, but were stymied by the Chevron agreement ( GM could have led the electric revolution with the EV1 | Page 3 | PriusChat ) until after 2010.

All of that just to point out that if there was no Chevron and if there was no Tesla, there would have still been a thriving BEV market by now, and Toyota would be in the thick of it.

 

Ford and Disney were notorious antisemites so I guess it's possible to acknowledge that someone can be a good businessman while having major character flaws

 

More like genius, seems to go with the territory

 

While this is an important market, I am more impressed by the worldwide sales.
The Toyota Corolla was number one in 2022. Followed by the RAV4

I do hope Toyota takes notice that the Tesla model Y just took the #4 spot away from the Toyota Camry.

Best-selling car models worldwide 2022 | Statista

In Tesla’s first 10 years they delivered about 5000 cars. In the next 10 years, 2 Million. It will be interesting what happens over the next 10.

 

• The Ca Governor EO for 100% ZEV was in Sept 2020. Model 3 sales were growing before then.
• A law signed in Nov 2021. The amount for interstate EV chargers is $4 billion, with rational rounding, over 5 years. More below.
• Tesla also had a partnership with Mercedes for EV conversions at the time that gave Tesla a boost in needed capital. Who made more off their Tesla investment? Again more below.

Toyota imported those RAv4 EV because they were required to do so by California for the state's first ZEV program. The second ZEV program, which the "100%" ZEV one is a continuation of, was also a driving force on the introduction of the PiP, and why your Prius Prime was so affordable.

You are presenting the law as if it benefits EVs only, when it covers a lot more.
"It provides $550 billion over fiscal years 2022 through 2026 in new Federal investment in infrastructure, including in roads, bridges, and mass transit, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband."
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law - FHWA | Federal Highway Administration
Your own link includes sections that have nothing to do with EVs.

The actual law if anyone wants to read it.
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684enr.pdf

Bullshit.

The Chevron patents and settlement only cover NiMH. Toyota was free to work with Li-ion, or any other chemistry, if they wanted to pursue plug ins.

What exactly has Tesla done to keep Toyota out of the thick of it? If Toyota would have been a major player in plug ins without Tesla around, why can't they be with them?

Toyota's BEV and plug in policy was set before Tesla existed. The high cost and poor performance of BEVs using lead-acid that even predated the EV1 had convinced them that BEVs were no good for anything but city cars, and they did not re-evaluate later. Instead they focused on hydrogen fuel cells. Can't blame their performance there on anybody else.

 

I wish that someone would produce the Chevron patent infringement settlement that Mitsubishi, Panasonic and Toyota agreed to in 2004. It seems to be under some sort of secrecy order. According to a Chevron press release to the Securities Exchange Commission, in addition to paying royalties it also included cross licensing of the defendant's battery patents and No Compete clauses that gave Chevron's subsidiary the sole right to sell batteries (intended for transportation) in undisclosed areas of North America.

Toyota was given an exemption from the agreement so that they could pay a royalty and continue to use limited NiMH battery packs in Prius and other ICE hybrids.

That would explain why Toyota has wavered back and forth on the BEV vs FCEV vs HEV decision in recent years. Once the agreement fully expires we may see much more energy expended in producing PHEVs and and BEVs.

 

Where did you pluck that little nugget of hidden knowledge? Were you able to find a copy of that settlement?

 

The Ovonics patent was always only for NiMH.
Espacenet – search results

As for the settlement.

 

First. you have to notice that the part you are taking to be the settlement is just a press release that describes the settlement in vague terms. I've not seen the actual settlement terms, and I doubt any other Priuschat user has either.

Second, reparations in infringement cases are not restricted to paying royalties for lost income for infringement on that specific patent. Like all business negotiations there is give and take. A common threat is a cease and desist order which can be deadly if you have huge amounts of money invested in manufacturing the infringing product.

I've noticed that large companies often force the infringing company to grant the large company rights to the patents of the infringing company's patents. If you combine that with non-compete clauses it can really tie up a company's new development for the life of the agreement. I suspect that's what happened here. If you have proof that proves that wrong, I'd be glad to see it.

 

What you quoted specifically says NiMH battery. No where does it use the term battery alone. Furthermore, it is not a press release, but a legally required filing with the SEC; form 8-K. Form 8-K

"Form 8-K provides investors with current information to enable them to make informed decisions. The types of information required to be disclosed on Form 8-K are generally considered to be “material.” That means that, in general, there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the information important in making an investment decision."
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/readan8k.pdf

Toyota agreeing to stop or limit R&D into BEVs, which is what losing access to all large format battery types would be, is material to investors.

 

Umm, the Prius PHEV came out in 2012, no? So how did Toyota already produce it and market it in 2010?

Mike

 

Technically, true. From what I could find, Toyota had sold 1.2 Million Prius, worldwide.
We’re they selling others at that point?

 

hycam started in 06 or 7 in n/a