[supermax]

Toyota has made no secret about their reluctance to go all-out towards EVs, as most of the other car makers seem to be doing. They have instead been working on other alternatives such as their hydrogen-based Fuel-Cell EV (FCEV) Mirai, but now they've gone an extra step and successfully tested their prototype of a hydrogen-based ICE car, using their rookie racing team as the guinea pigs.

Their testing is making it possible to work their way towards what is tentatively being called the Corolla Cross H2, their hydrogen-based ICE roadcar. Is this the mythical EV killing car that people have been discussing in hushed whispers? At least on paper, it seems extremely impressive, the car being driven by their tried and tested 1.6L three-pot turbo petrol engine which already has acquitted itself in the Yaaris GR and Corolla GR models. A full refueling is expected to take 1.5 minutes, making EVs seem like cavemen era toys, no matter how EV lovers try to spin it!

https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-hyd...-evs-obsolete/

[SKC-auto]

Here it is, EV lovers spin:
1. The car needs to be refueled every 44kms, imagine stopping for 11 times for a 500km trip. I prefer two 30mins stops than eleven 1.5min stops.

2. This car required 4 truck loads of Hydrogen fuel for 1600kms, so better buy a diesel truck to trial the car for road trips so that the driver can drive for some 500kms, buy 2 trucks to increase range to 900kms as there is no H2 refuelling infra.

3. If FCEV looks worse, with only few thousands of sales worldwide compared to millions of EV sales, H2 combustion will be a disaster. This is how the effeciencies measure EV=3×FCEV =9×H2ICE.

We cannot wait for Toyota or BMW to fix all the issues in next 20years, I am sure they can increase the range of car to 100kms in that time period, where we can pay ~₹8000 for next 100kms.

I don't find it impressive, and the search continues to find that mythical EV killer.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Here it is, EV lovers spin:
1. The car needs to be refueled every 44kms, imagine stopping for 11 times for a 500km trip. I prefer two 30mins stops than eleven 1.5min stops.

2. This car required 4 truck loads of Hydrogen fuel for 1600kms, so better buy a diesel truck to trial the car for road trips so that the driver can drive for some 500kms, buy 2 trucks to increase range to 900kms as there is no H2 refuelling infra.

3. If FCEV looks worse, with only few thousands of sales worldwide compared to millions of EV sales, H2 combustion will be a disaster. This is how the effeciencies measure EV=3×FCEV =9×H2ICE.

We cannot wait for Toyota or BMW to fix all the issues in next 20years, I am sure they can increase the range of car to 100kms in that time period, where we can pay ~₹8000 for next 100kms.

I don't find it impressive, and the search continues to find that mythical EV killer.

Considering that Toyota haven't officially released any figures about the range (only stating that after some changes it's now 20% better than before, which is nothing, if you don't know the previous range), do you have a source for your figures? 44 km range, four truckloads of hydrogen?! An article in autoblog says this "The race Corolla had four tanks of hydrogen stuffed in the cargo area," which I think you mistook for four trucks of hydrogen, or do you really have a source?

[supermax]

For the record, I'm ambivalent about EVs. I'm a great fan of simplicity, but also a great fan of convenience, and those two factors often pull in opposite directions. I'm just about making my peace with the fact that the cars we drive are only going to get more and more complex, with just about every kind of failure being something that cannot be addressed by anybody other than the authorized dealership/service network, either due to the hanging sword of warranty cessation, or of overly complex designs and obfuscation. That said, I hate it when I have to let my car decide my schedules, instead of just serving as a tool to get me from the proverbial Point A to Point B. I love the ease of use of EVs, and I know that one can make it work with them, but the efforts to make it work as of today seem absurd in comparison with simply tanking up in a matter of seconds and not having to bother for a long time. My current car, a petrol Octavia, has a highway tankful range of over 750 km, which is really a lot. I can do a coast to coast trip in Sweden, and not have to make a single stop for fuel. If I stop for a sandwich, I can be back on the road in 10 minutes, instead of having to stop for a mandatory 30 minutes, which to me is a huge difference.

[SKC-auto]

The Corolla completed the race with 35 pitstops (giving an average stint length of 10.2 laps), which were estimated to take around seven minutes each - meaning the car spent around four hours refuelling.

Total distance of the race is 1600kms/35 refuelling stops = 45kms/refuelling. You can find the 4 trailers used for the cars refuelling in the below link, as I said H2ice is incredibly less efficient than EVs.

As you said for these 45kms range the car required 4 large tanks which makes it a 2 seater, or Toyota can design a large car like mirai with 4 seats and compromised boot.

https://www.motorsport.com/super-tai...uture/6514557/

If I stop for a sandwich, I can be back on the road in 10 minutes, instead of having to stop for a mandatory 30 minutes, which to me is a huge difference.

The first question then should be, why this transition to EVs is required? A slight inconvenience for few drivers does not matter if the result is good for everyone. I don't know if you have kids, but it is quiet common to stop for 30mins every 4 hours of driving with kids or old people.

Anyway, people who prefer to stop for less than 10 mins should wait until 2030 to convert to EVs.

[theMAG]

I'd say Toyota might have something by sticking to their hydrogen alternative.

Unless EVs can perform comparably in range with ICE vehicles in cold - which they do not currently, have an 80% recharge in 20 minutes and have as wide-spread a recharging network even in the remotest parts of a country as gas stations - neither of which could be further from reality at this time, or are affordable to own even in depressed socio-economic communities - which couldn't be any more unattainable from today's average EV price, pure EVs will remain expensive toys.

[kosjam]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Here it is, EV lovers spin:
1. The car needs to be refueled every 44kms, imagine stopping for 11 times for a 500km trip. I prefer two 30mins stops than eleven 1.5min stops.
I don't find it impressive, and the search continues to find that mythical EV killer.

While I was going through the whole thread, I was reminded of the Engineering Explained video on the Toyota Hydrogen car. The best thing about this channel is that everything is based on maths and numbers, so it is very easy to positively identify whether something works or not. No flowery language, just numbers.

And the video unequivocally states that hydrogen cars, at least in their current form, are completely impractical and pointless.

In comparison, the EV is a semi mature offering, which will only improve, given the amount of research which is going into the battery storage technology. The availability of energy at literally every electrical outlet also ensures that one being stranded for the lack of fuel is something which won't happen, (even in the worst case scenario, the vehicle might get delayed a few hours, to charge on a power outlet, but won't actually need to be towed to a hydrogen refueling station which will at best be close to a big city.

Link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8&t=425s

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by theMAG

neither of which could be further from reality at this time

One sells in millions, the other in few thousands. Even though they lose some range, EVs are just fine in cold places like Norway.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

https://www.motorsport.com/super-tai...uture/6514557/


The first question then should be, why this transition to EVs is required? A slight inconvenience for few drivers does not matter if the result is good for everyone. I don't know if you have kids, but it is quiet common to stop for 30mins every 4 hours of driving with kids or old people.

Anyway, people who prefer to stop for less than 10 mins should wait until 2030 to convert to EVs.

Thanks for the link; yes, you are right. Hydrogen as fuel seems like a bit too far to be practical, as of now. Yes, I have a child, but we are not even at the point of traveling for four hours right now, but I want to point out that four hours here is about 450 km, which is beyond the range of any EV as of now, and if it is winter, the effective range is barely 200 km, so those 30 minute stops need to come a lot earlier. Also, another point with traveling with kids is that you need to be able to stop when they want, not when you want, so cranky kids plus a car which needs to be stopped at a designated charging station would mean at least twice the number of stops, even if you are just wishing you could get to the destination to relax.

There really is no prize for falling onto the edge of a sharp sword, being an early adopter. If you think the warm feeling of doing something good for the environment is nice, it's far better if you simply reduce car use altogether. And the disposal/recycling alternatives for spent batteries is still unclear, even when we are almost ready to accept that EVs are mature, and that is damning to say the least.

Originally Posted by theMAG

I'd say Toyota might have something by sticking to their hydrogen alternative.

Unless EVs can perform comparably in range with ICE vehicles in cold - which they do not currently, have an 80% recharge in 20 minutes and have as wide-spread a recharging network even in the remotest parts of a country as gas stations - neither of which could be further from reality at this time, or are affordable to own even in depressed socio-economic communities - which couldn't be any more unattainable from today's average EV price, pure EVs will remain expensive toys.

Exactly. Some countries like Norway and Sweden incentivized EV purchases to encourage early adopters, but Sweden ended the subsidy last year, so there's really no incentive except for maybe bragging rights of owning some fancy EV, but in reality, they are unpractical. My friend had to cancel a trip to visit us mainly because of the charging logistics. He'd not have had any difficulty with the planning, had he not sold off his diesel car.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

One sells in millions, the other in few thousands. Even though they lose some range, EVs are just fine in cold places like Norway.

No. Norway heavily incentivized EVs by giving government funded discounts (like cashbacks), which is making it seem more successful than it really is. The range still sucks in winters, but yes, manageable with extra jumping through hoops, but some of the earliest adopters already have batteries that have been replaced or well on its way, and we still don't have proper recycling and disposal routines in place, so the warm feeling of doing something good for the environment rings hollow, at least as of now. The next couple of years will bring ever increasing numbers of those batteries, and that's a potential threat to the environment. We seem to just be kicking the bucket further down the road. This is the reason why Toyota at least have to be lauded for thinking outside the box, but it's another story altogether whether their tech will gain maturity and traction. The calorific value of hydrogen is three times higher than both diesel and petrol, so in principle, it will never require truckloads of hydrogen. The trucks were obviously the mobile 'gas stations', not just the gas.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

No. Norway heavily incentivized EVs by giving government funded discounts (like cashbacks), which is making it seem more successful than it really is.
The range still sucks in winters, but yes, manageable with extra jumping through hoops, but some of the earliest adopters already have batteries that have been replaced or well on its way, and we still don't have proper recycling and disposal routines in place, so the warm feeling of doing something good for the environment rings hollow, at least as of now. The next couple of years will bring ever increasing numbers of those batteries, and that's a potential threat to the environment. We seem to just be kicking the bucket further down the road. This is the reason why Toyota at least have to be lauded for thinking outside the box, but it's another story altogether whether their tech will gain maturity and traction. The calorific value of hydrogen is three times higher than both diesel and petrol, so in principle, it will never require truckloads of hydrogen. The trucks were obviously the mobile 'gas stations', not just the gas.

The incentives are same for EVs and H2 cars. There are already many recyclers and in Europe every battery is tagged and needs to be recycled, 92% of battery materials can be recycled with current tech.

The Well to Wheel emissions of EVs are better than ICE cars even if coal powered, they will be far better as we see cheaper, cleaner batteries and 100% renewable powered.

I fully agree with using cycles and public transport, now convincing people to change to cycles and public transport is the challenge. Half of them will simply deny climate change, another 30% don't care or are enthusiasts like us.

The calorific value of H2 may be high but their volumetric density is terrible, the reason Toyota Mirai needs 3 large H2 tanks, and this test car needs 4 tanks. I showed you 4 trucks of H2 gas, 2 trucks for mobile filling stations(total 6 trucks), it's your take which one to believe.

Watch above engineering explained video, you will know what a joke H2 ice car is. Toyota can throw some cash at such projects to confuse people, they sell more Hybrids to these confused people.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

The incentives are same for EVs and H2 cars. There are already many recyclers and in Europe every battery is tagged and needs to be recycled, 92% of battery materials can be recycled with current tech.

The Well to Wheel emissions of EVs are better than ICE cars even if coal powered, they will be far better as we see cheaper, cleaner batteries and 100% renewable powered.

I fully agree with using cycles and public transport, now convincing people to change to cycles and public transport is the challenge. Half of them will simply deny climate change, another 30% don't care or are enthusiasts like us.

The calorific value of H2 may be high but their volumetric density is terrible, the reason Toyota Mirai needs 3 large H2 tanks, and this test car needs 4 tanks. I showed you 4 trucks of H2 gas, 2 trucks for mobile filling stations(total 6 trucks), it's your take which one to believe.

Watch above engineering explained video, you will know what a joke H2 ice car is. Toyota can throw some cash at such projects to confuse people, they sell more Hybrids to these confused people.

I have no hesitation in conceding that you're right when it comes to H2 ICE being totally immature at the moment, but have a bit of difficulty to accept that all of this huge expenditure by Toyota is all just an elaborate ruse to sell more hybrids. The volumetric density is where the higher pressures and the need to have reinforced tanks come in. Even if they can't reach the range of a conventional ICE car (EVs in comparison have anything ranging from 20% to 40%, depending on ambient temperature), their significant advantage will be the refuel time. If a refill can be achieved within 3-4 minutes, as opposed to a 30 minute stop time for EVs, you'll see people willing to ditch the EV bandwagon. The best part? They even get to enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly, knowing that they are driving a clean vehicle which doesn't burn fossil fuels.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

I have no hesitation in conceding that you're right when it comes to H2 ICE being totally immature at the moment, but have a bit of difficulty to accept that all of this huge expenditure by Toyota is all just an elaborate ruse to sell more hybrids. The volumetric density is where the higher pressures and the need to have reinforced tanks come in. Even if they can't reach the range of a conventional ICE car (EVs in comparison have anything ranging from 20% to 40%, depending on ambient temperature), their significant advantage will be the refuel time. If a refill can be achieved within 3-4 minutes, as opposed to a 30 minute stop time for EVs, you'll see people willing to ditch the EV bandwagon. The best part? They even get to enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly, knowing that they are driving a clean vehicle which doesn't burn fossil fuels.

Refuelling time is not a great concern, when you have other big concerns with H2 cars.

1. Each refuelling station(1 hose) costs ₹16crore($2M) without considering land costs, unlike EVs which are charged at home and use public chargers only on road trips, H2 cars need to be refuelled only at very few public refuelling stations, 2 mins refuel is a myth, see long queues of very few H2 cars even in H2 cars capital California.

https://youtu.be/M0_RsqR37-E

2. Most of the H2(95%) is made from SMR process, which is dirty than using fossil fuels, since methane is more a greenhouse gas than CO2.

3. Even if green H2 is made it requires 3x renewables, 3x solar installations, 3x wind generation.

4. H2 is sold at $25 per kg in California right now, an FCEV can travel 110km/kg which costs 18₹/km compared to 2₹/km for EVs and 8₹/km for petrol. The H2 ice car will cost upto 240₹/km which is insane.

Toyota does not have any magic, h2 is an element Toyota or anyone has to compress, no other option. So Toyota cannot do much at the fuel front, can they do something to the effeciency of engine. You can improve effeciency of an engine only to certain extent otherwise Toyota would have given us petrol engines with 30kmpl instead of hybrids.

So Toyota options of increasing effeciency is limited with either the fuel or engine. Can they reduce to 2 truck loads from current 4 truck loads in next 20 years, will the car be practical with 2 truck loads of fuel?

Leave about ditching EVs, except for the so called 2 mins refuelling times, there is zero advantage of H2.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Refuelling time is not a great concern, when you have other big concerns with H2 cars.

1. Each refuelling station(1 hose) costs ₹16crore($2M) without considering land costs, unlike EVs which are charged at home and use public chargers only on road trips, H2 cars need to be refuelled only at very few public refuelling stations, 2 mins refuel is a myth, see long queues of very few H2 cars even in H2 cars capital California.

https://Youtu.be/M0_RsqR37-E

2. Most of the H2(95%) is made from SMR process, which is dirty than using fossil fuels, since methane is more a greenhouse gas than CO2.

3. Even if green H2 is made it requires 3x renewables, 3x solar installations, 3x wind generation.

4. H2 is sold at $25 per kg in California right now, an FCEV can travel 110km/kg which costs 18₹/km compared to 2₹/km for EVs and 8₹/km for petrol. The H2 ice car will cost upto 240₹/km which is insane.

Toyota does not have any magic, h2 is an element Toyota or anyone has to compress, no other option. So Toyota cannot do much at the fuel front, can they do something to the effeciency of engine. You can improve effeciency of an engine only to certain extent otherwise Toyota would have given us petrol engines with 30kmpl instead of hybrids.

So Toyota options of increasing effeciency is limited with either the fuel or engine. Can they reduce to 2 truck loads from current 4 truck loads in next 20 years, will the car be practical with 2 truck loads of fuel?

Leave about ditching EVs, except for the so called 2 mins refuelling times, there is zero advantage of H2.

That was a very informative video. If anything, it tells me that they are doing pretty well, considering that it's such a new technology. The buyers are obviously guinea pigs, but that's why they are getting unheard of discounts, 15K USD worth of free fuel cards and the like; those are just to help compensate the early adopters for the issues they help unearth with a largely untested system.

For an engineer like me, the issues such as fuel nozzle getting frozen and locked to the car sound very fixable, and a safe solution will surely roll out. So, if you leave out the queue times, the actual filling doesn't take 2 minutes, but 3? I'll take that. It's not like queues are non-existent at superchargers, and this too is something that'll get better with infrastructure upgrades.

Now coming to the four trucks part, I don't think you seem to be understanding. The car is not consuming four truckloads of hydrogen. The two trucks are their fueling setup. For a trackside fueling with petrol, it's more compact, but the two truck rig is their fueling on the go setup that they have for trackside. It sounds both funny misleading when you keep saying four truckloads and two truckloads of hydrogen consumed.

I think their FCEV is the means to get people started onto the hydrogen platform, and hydrogen ICE is what they are buying time for, but in the meanwhile, they still have a solid product. And debates about clean production of h2 can be made for electricity too, and that's a secondary issue. Both EVs and FCEVs effectively solve the particulate matter part of the pollution problem, and they both become cleaner when production gets cleaner, but the reduced dependence on large capacity batteries in the FCEV, and the elimination of batteries in the H2 ICE cars are arguably steps in the right direction, environment-wise. The current range of the Mirai is better than any EV in the market, and it's not going to drop off by 40% in the winter, so that's a solid plus too, for example the Nordics. It'll be interesting to see if any of the Nordic countries welcome H2 options.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by kosjam

Link to the video:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8&t=425s

Also a very nice video; thanks for sharing. The issue I have with it though is that he discusses the extremely inefficient v8 offering, which I suppose is for some sporty application, not for regular city driving cars, but he uses those approximated numbers and ends up saying that the efficiency of hydrogen engines is therefore 19 MPG, which is highly disingenuous; that's like saying the Standard 2000 has an FE of around 2 km/L, and is driven on petrol, so petrol engines have an efficiency of 2km/L!

[SKC-auto]

Fuel cell too lose >20% range in winter according to this study.

A new study, realized in the US and funded under a National Fuel Cell Bus Program grant, provides a clear answer: the switch to cold temperatures (between -5 and 0° C) affects the range of up to 38 per cent decrease in case of battery-electric buses, and up to 23 per cent decrease for hydrogen-powered buses.

https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news...-study-by-cte/

Not all EVs lose 40% range, cars with heat pump tend to lose less than 30% range, still most cars like KONA 64kwh gives a range of >300km at 120kmph(from Bjorn Nyland winter test at -15C).

So, H2 ice does not work for supercars?

My last post on this discussion.