Toyota Mirai To Be Pace Car At This Weekend’s NASCAR Race

APR 25 2015 BY MARK KANE 62

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

Toyota Mirai will get a bold launch in US as the NASCAR pace car on Saturday night (April 25).

This will be the very first hydrogen fuel cell electric car to take such a role. The car gets nifty stickers and with its emergency lights, it’s ready to hit the race track.

To see the Mirai Pace Car you’ll have to head to the Toyota Owners 400 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race at Richmond International Raceway in Virginia (tickets available online at or by calling 866-455-RACE) or watch the race on TV.

“Today’s approval allows the Mirai to serve as the first hydrogen-fueled vehicle to pace a NASCAR race. It will lead the Sprint Cup Series field to the green flag at Richmond on Saturday night and emit only water out of its tailpipe along the way.”

“The Mirai is a four-door, mid-size sedan with performance to pace the 43-car NASCAR field at Richmond International Raceway (RIR) while using no gasoline and emitting nothing but water vapor. The groundbreaking fuel cell electric vehicle is powered by hydrogen, refuels in about five minutes and travels up to 300 miles on a full tank. It will arrive first to buyers in California later this year.

The Mirai was tested and approved by NASCAR to pace the Toyota Owners 400 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race after a test session at RIR earlier today. In the test session, the Mirai met NASCAR’s performance requirements to pace the 400-mile NSCS race.

There is Toyota precedent bringing hybrid and alternative fuel technology to track. The Toyota Camry Hybrid earned praise as the first hybrid vehicle to pace a full NASCAR race when the hybrid vehicle was used for the Coca Cola 600 in May 2009.

From fuel-efficient vehicles to developing groundbreaking technologies, Toyota is proud to be at the forefront of environmental sustainability – and the Mirai pace car showcases this commitment. Toyota has more than 2 million hybrid vehicles on U.S. roads – more than any other manufacturer – and continues to develop new breakthroughs in plug-in, electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies.”

Ed Laukes, vice president of marketing, performance and guest experience, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. said:

“Having a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle pace the Toyota Owners 400 is a historic moment for both Toyota and NASCAR and we’re proud it’s the Toyota Mirai. Bringing the Mirai to Richmond to pace this important race is another way for Toyota to showcase our innovation and environmental leadership.”

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

2016 Toyota Mirai Pace Car

Categories: Racing, Toyota

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

62 Comments on "Toyota Mirai To Be Pace Car At This Weekend’s NASCAR Race"

newest oldest most voted

Wow. The Laughing stock of the car field to be put on display. Bold Move.

The Volt made this car OBSOLETE IN 2010. There won’t be a shortage of gas, while EV’s take over the industry. So, there will never be a need for this car.

The energy conversion inefficiency still there. Looks like Toyota is being Bribed or Extorted by the Carbon industry in Japan. The Japanese government should be looking into this. Market Manipulation by the carbon industry.

There is no carbon industry in Japan. Japan has almost no natural fossil fuel resources.

According to the latest projections ( hydrogen cars are greener than electric cars for large portions of the dirty, coal based US electric grid. So in the short term there is a place for them.

In the long term, when 100% of energy is renewable, hydrogen cars have a place for those who want quick refueling and long range using distributed electrolysis (such as from a home solar system). There’s a very good chance that hydrogen will be the goto technology for solar and wind energy storage; batteries may remain an order of magnitude more expensive than solar cells themselves. Efficiency doesn’t matter; only cost does. Cost is the bottom line.

In other news, I love how the editors of this site knowingly post hydrogen articles in order to troll their readers. It’s almost too easy.

Well that comment was just too easy, conspiracy theorists might give the more complex, Toyota is paying them under the table to publish these articles, as an explanation.

Though I suspect you are correct that they could surmise the raucous reaction of their readers in regard to the great hydrogen debacle.

Sigh. Totally lose-lose sometimes. Here is a look behind the curtain: We weren’t going to cover fuel cells at all (and didn’t for almost our first year), but then we got overwhelmed with emails and comments about how we should…how they deserved to be in the electric vehicle discussion. (Myself personally don’t think we probably should, but I also recognize that I have a huge bias and I could be wrong – so we publish them now. Because of my stance/bias you will never see any articles from me on the tech for that reason) Today when we post articles that show some skepticism on the viability of the tech, we strongly hear about bias…but if we deliver it straight without commentary we are trolling. Total catch-22. Not saying your comment shouldn’t be said Three Electrics, as we are trying our best to gauge the overall reading interests of the community…but as of right now, we really have no clue as to what the perfect solution is. — Sidenote: I know it was just an off-the-cuff remark ffbj, but I do like the mention when we have the opportunity that InsideEVs has never accepted any money (or compensation) of any… Read more »

This link illustrates Jays point. The writers on most other mainstream auto websites expect to get free first-class airfare, free luxury hotel rooms, and free gifts (swag) from automakers when they review an automaker’s car. One auto journalist even got offered a prostitute by an automaker!!! The auto journalists understand that if they give a bad review, the gravy train will end for them. That is why you’ll rarely, if ever, see a mainstream auto website give a car a bad review.


Thanks for explaining that. But please, -please- write and publish an op-ed piece to make this clear to the readership. Burying your remarks on editorial policy deep in a comment section isn’t sufficient to “get the word out”.

That might be a good idea…I think many of the long time readers/community know it, but not the wider audience.


I can see in my mind’s eye, the comment thread of this op-ed 🙂

As I wrote below, with FC vehicles it’s the readers who are the trolls, not the editors. Perhaps the only thing that generates worse responses than mentioning global warming here…

no, the “op-ed” idea is a terrible idea. if you buy this idea that you need to write an “op-ed” as a disclaimer for every fuel cell article, then it would make more sense to just not publish fuel cell articles at all, because you’re going to look pretty idiotic writing op-ed’s to “explain” other posted articles.

I don’t think he really meant “op-ed” just a story saying that we don’t take money/”gifts” from OEMs in exchange for covering/promoting/giving favoritism to a specific product.

So it wouldn’t be in response fuel cells or any one thing in particular, just as an overall ‘how we do business’ kind of thing. That way when someone brings up the opinion that something is not to their likeing and/or could be “paid” for, there would be a handy link to answer that question.

where this blog has looked suspicious to me was not when publishing articles discussing general technology issues, but rather when publishing articles that clearly promote a particular manufacturer’s wares: for example, when posting articles and “op-ed”s from the bmwblog where one is left wonder about what the content value of the article was…

Well, much like myself personally have little tolerance for fuel cell vehicles, it still finds a place here free from my 2p.

We try to offer a pretty wide array of stories understanding that not everyone wants to see the same thing.

Sometimes highly technical stories, sometimes not. Sometimes just straight news item, sometimes with some humor. Sometimes US based, sometimes Euro or Asia based etc.

Sometimes a positive story comes from BMWBlog…as one might expect – we swap first run stories on plug-in Bimmers quite often (we also note where it is from very clearly), then sometimes we run a story about how the auto-park on the i3 kinda sucks.

Again, I don’t think anyone is going to read all 12-14 stories we publish every day and proclaim them all satisfying to their tastes…but hopefully everyone can find 6 or 7 they are interested in. That is the goal anywhoo.

i find the derisive comments about FCEV technology (of “fool cell” as some would say) are idiotic. this is a blog that presumably discusses topics related to electric vehicle technology. whether some like it or not, fuel cell is an electric vehicle technology. the incentive for FCEV technology is to address shortcomings in BEV technology; especially as related to (what most people in the real world would consider) the long recharge times associated with BEVs.

it is fair to say that in its current state, FCEVs are not ready for prime time. but the reality is, neither are BEVs, even though BEVs are currently closer to that point than are FCEVs. but then again, BEVs are closer to “prime time” today than they were 15 years ago.

i see nothing wrong with informing people of the state of FCEV technology in articles. there is no need for this blog to post “disclaimers” or advocate the positions of elon musk; if you have some information, just report it – not every reader here is a member of the tin foil hat brigade.

Well spoken. I regret my comment, which is baseless, and I’d delete it if I could.

I was, in truth, lashing out at your user base. It is frustrating to come for excellent EV news (I am a huge fan) stay for the reasonable fuel cell articles, and become disgusted by the lack of critical thinking and irrational bias of most posters.

I’d leave but for a small subset of users, who leave reasoned, enlightening gems. This commentary is light years ahead of the usual: rewarmed wads of crazy spit from Elon Musk’s mouth.

Hey Three Electrics,

Very much appreciate your comment on the site…thanks.

ps) No need to leave over fuel cell discussions, they will always be animated around here – trick is to say your mind, and then not take things to heart too much, and then just move on the next topic, (=

No, I think it’s the reader crowd that’s acting like trolls to any mention of hydrogen vehicles.

90%+ anti-FC trolls and 10%- pro-FC trolls, but almost no one is keeping their heads, which is what most articles here actually try to do.

The fact Toyota and Tesla executives all behave like trolls on the matter, doesn’t force us to follow suit. They have their own perceived (and often very narrow) corporate interests, we have ours which are hopefully far broader.

FC vehicles use electric drive, so on the merits they are relevant to this side IMHO.

Moreover, I find nothing wrong with the idea of a FC PHEV. The fact Toyota/Hyundai decided to launch the first-generation without this option, is unfortunate. But long-term, thanks to FC tech we can envision a completely oil-free ground locomotion system, with FC PHEVs taking up those niches where there’s an intense use of power while gobbling up long distances, or away from the grid (e.g., cross-continent trucks, off-road, bulldozers, etc. etc.).

Forgot to add: most vehicles in this envisioned future, will be BEVs, powered from a renewable-dominated grid.

Meanwhile, the niche of FC PHEVs will use the relatively smaller quantities of energy that can be derived from renewable H2 sources (rather than ‘cracking’ natural gas).

There simply is -no- rational argument for using hydrogen fuel to power the average car (or passenger vehicle) in any configuration. Not even in a FC PHEV. The problem isn’t the “fool cell”, it’s the hydrogen fuel.

Here are the two options:

(1) Get hydrogen by reforming natural gas, thus merely switching one fossil fuel (oil) for another.

(2) Generate hydrogen via electrolysis, or from waste products (see the recent posting here at InsideEVs of Toyota’s propaganda video about using cattle manure as feedstock for hydrogen). In either case, far more energy will be wasted, and far more carbon dioxide emitted, in generating, compressing, storing, moving, and dispensing the hydrogen than is contained in the hydrogen itself. Not to mention far more energy wasted than would be required to push a BEV down the road at highway speed.

Either way, it’s a losing proposition. To be blunt, using hydrogen fuel to power everyday transportation isn’t merely foolish — it’s wasteful and stupid.


this – “far more energy will be wasted, and far more carbon dioxide emitted, in generating, compressing, storing, moving, and dispensing the hydrogen than is contained in the hydrogen itself”

– you don’t know that, you presume it. Hard to judge based on 1st-generation tech.

Just like the bean-counters are throwing the footprint books at EVs based on 1st-gen battery production footprint.

When oil drilling started in the 19th century, and even well into the 20th, they would let the oil just spurt out continuously, collecting only a fraction. The tech matured and they’ve gotten more efficient. Not that I endorse the oil industry, but that’s the typical tech development path.

Likewise, there’s every reason to expect that renewable H2 production will become cost-effectively efficient. Quantities, though, might be limited. Hence the concept of targeting it for niches. Still better than drilling oil IMHO.


Wrong. I realize it’s normal and even expected in Internet discussions to state opinion as fact, but in this case it really is fact. You can’t change the immutable laws of physics, which is what you’d have to do to make hydrogen fuel either practical or affordable.

As I’ve said: It would be as easy to create a working perpetual motion machine, and for the exact same reasons: The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be gotten around with a clever invention. 1st generation tech, 10th generation, 100th generation… doesn’t matter. It can’t be done, period.

Not opinion, Assaf. Fact.

@Lensman, I followed your 3 links and nothing in them contradicts what I wrote.

The most recent one focuses on natural-gas as H2 source, assuming it will dominate because of economics. It only posits renewable H2 as coming from renewable electricity, rather than directly via renewable chemical processes.

The other two are from 2006-7 – ancient history in EV and FC terms – and unsurprisingly conclude that at the time, renewable H2 extraction tech was not efficient enough to be viable.

Similar things have been said – are still said! – about EVs – even as the tech has become evidently viable from all aspects.

Heck, till a couple years ago similar things were said about solar, and anti-solar lobbies still peddle the “solar is expensive” lie counting on people’s ignorance.

I say exploring renewable H2 paths as a source for a future FC niche in a fossil-free transportation system is worth the try.

Let’s agree to disagree, while agreeing on the bigger picture that the bulk of the transportation segment should become BEV.

Cheers, Assaf

“– you don’t know that, you presume it. Hard to judge based on 1st-generation tech.”

Actually the energy consumed and the carbon dioxide emitted to produce hydrogen and most other fuels has been quantified by Argonne National Lab in its comprehensive “GREET 1” well-to-wheels analysis. According to Argonne, hydrogen produced with 1st-generation tech is no where near as bad as Lensman makes it out to be, and is actually very good for hydrogen from biomass. I mentioned it in a comment below.

Argonne National Laboratory GREET1 well-to-wheels analysis for various fuels, and definitions of abbreviations used:

Total energy graph:

I think there is a mistaken belief that Hydrogen production is something new that is emerging alongside FC. Hydrogen has been produced at industrial scale for quite a while now, so I don’t buy into these arguments of FCEVs suddenly changing the economics of H2. I would venture FCEV use will remain a small fraction of hydrogen use for a while to come. As the current manufacturers are in business to make money selling hydrogen, I would assume if there is a more efficient way to make hydrogen, they would be doing so.

Then, this is when I have to disagree with your comment.
As you boldly state that BEV will ultimatly be the good option, Three electric wrote the same basically.
Then the obvious question is, ain’t hydrogen just wasting our time.
Grid efficiency and cleaness of the grid is something that has to be done anyway for public health and better living and I don’t see that we have to wait until any point to start at least cleaning some or our habit.
For mainstream transportation I don’t see any advantage of hydrogen in any future.

Energy storage system is totally another story, althougt not unrelated in some way’s.
Just my thought.

The price of EV’s is projected to bean ICE vehicles in the near future, it will beat to Death Hydrogen vehicles as well. Only an idiot would continue to invest in Hydrogen.

Toyota’s CEO is no idiot, therefore, bribery or extortion.

Secondly, Coal is Also dead in the near term.

Geometric Growth is Geometric.
As the price of Solar has dropped, so has the time to install solar. Where it used to take 2 days to install a solar roof, now it takes 4 hours.

Get Out of All Carbon NOW, if you want to preserve your wealth.

i agree with your basic premise although i don’t know what a “pro” FC troll is; while i don’t think that either FCEV or BEV are “ready for prime time” FCEV is clearly farther away from that point than is BEV.

as to your suggestion of a FC PHEV; if that means a fuel cell stack *and* a battery, i don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense. i mean, if you’re got the FC stack, you have the means to generate electricity for driving; why would you need a separate battery for storage of charge?

In defense of InsideEVs throwing these “red meat” stories out to their readers, I will point out that fuel cell vehicles -do- fit the definition of electric vehicles. That is, they do use electric motors to propel the car.

Of course, that doesn’t alter the fact that any of the less inefficient, high-MPG gas guzzlers actually has lower well-to-wheel emissions than one of these “fool cell” vehicles. Anyone who says otherwise is either selling something, or else they’ve swallowed the propaganda of those who are.

Lensman, you are mistaken. Argonne National Laboratory’s comprehensive “GREET 1” wheels-to-wheel analysis of various automotive fuels determined that hydrogen from steam reformed methane (natural gas) generates less CO2 well-to-wheels than burning gasoline in an efficient hybrid or burning natural gas directly in an ICE. Steam reforming methane is 65% to 75% efficient, which results in lower CO2 emissions than a hybrid or natural gas ICE, even after factoring in compressing and transporting the hydrogen generated. In comparison, a natural gas plant generating electricity is only 40% efficient and 50% if it’s combined cycled, but the vast majority in the U.S. are not combined cycle. Then you have to factor in 10% transmission and distribution losses, about 10% to 15% charger losses from wall (AC) to battery (DC), and 10% inverter losses from battery (DC) to an 90% efficient AC motor. Are you saying we shouldn’t trust the wheel-to-wells CO2 analysis of Argonne Nation Laboratories, the most preeminent energy lab in the U.S.? Argonne is also the lab where a great many battery advances and breakthroughs originate. If you can’t trust Argonne National Lab, who can you trust? Argonne National Laboratory’s greenhouse gas emissions graph for various fuels: Table for… Read more »

“Efficiency doesn’t matter; only cost does. Cost is the bottom line.”
I’ll bite. Let’s consider the cost of the vehicles become equal. By the time FCVs arrive, batteries most likely will have achieved $100/kWh.

So what is your best guess at the the cost of a device to a)form hydrogen through electrolysis, b)compress the hydrogen, c)store it, and 4)dispense it vs a battery to do the same? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Pick any point on the time line you like, just do the same for the predicticted cost of the battery.

This report:

… estimates the cost of hydrogen energy storage at roughly $15-20/kWh in bulk, today. I’m sure it will drop in the future, but it’s hard to say by how much. Breakthroughs, or lack thereof, are hard to predict.

The report above focuses only on the actual storage medium, and excludes other system costs. That’s a strict comparison with a battery but doesn’t look at the big picture.

This report:

… analyses total storage costs for a large renewable electricity generation system (wind). For small kWh batteries do okay; for heavy duty hydrogen is 2x-3x cheaper than optimized batteries. Lithium-ion isn’t compared but would likely do worse; light weight isn’t needed in this application.

Compressed air compares very well here–but good luck pumping that into your car. Hydrogen is at the sweet spot: cheap to store and dense enough to pump into a car.

Finally, there are more speculative plans to lower the cost of hydrogen energy storage to less than $1/kWh using existing geologic formations and time-shifting hydrogen in pipeline infrastructure; for example:

I hesitated to mention such, but others (even self respecting CEOs who should know better) have brainwashed legions with less, so I’m going to give it a shot myself.

Uh, i just read that report, and it clearly does not say that H2 cars are “greener”. It says that if you produce H2 from natural gas and SEQUESTER the CO2, it’s greener than if you just run an EV off of the status quo grid mix. This happens all the time – comparing an ideal, hypothetical scenario for H2 to the current scenario for EVs. If you look at the other option for EVs on that report (renewable energy mix) you see it is way less carbon intensive than even H2 on wind electricity. The other question you have to ask is how much will it cost us as a society to get to each of those hypothetical scenarios. The fact that people on an individual basis are already achieving that EV+renewable scenario on their own dime with energy produced on their own rooftop suggests to me that EVs are a much easier path towards clean transportation.


Not so, actually. I specifically cited that report for its characterization of hydrogen from distributed natural gas as greener than EVs on today’s dirty grids.

The fact that carbon sequestration is even better is not material, as that is a future technology, and when it comes to future technologies I believe in solar plus electrolysis.

Understand that Japan is a resource-poor country. Its military expansion during WW II was an attempt to secure the natural resources, the supply of oil and steel, which they lack. That attempt at a resource land grab was, obviously, ultimately a failure. Post-war, Japan successfully created an economy based on light manufacturing, including electronics, reducing the need for imported oil and steel. They still have this problem; they still have to import virtually -all- the oil and steel their industry demands. So, it’s hardly a surprise that Japan would use the new fracking tech, in an effort to exploit what little natural resources they have. In any case, the volume in question isn’t enough to make a significant impact on demand. Furthermore, Japan’s desperate need for any domestic source of power makes me a bit sympathetic to their government’s efforts to push “the hydrogen economy”. Public fear of nuclear power has led to most commercial nuclear power plants being shut down in Japan, creating a critical shortage of electricity. Since BEVs will increase demand on electricity, it’s understandable they’re looking for some other alternative to gas/diesel powered passenger cars. Of course, the laws of physics work in Japan just like… Read more »

Three Electrics said:

“According to the latest projections ( hydrogen cars are greener than electric cars for large portions of the dirty, coal based US electric grid.”

And the Earth is flat, too!

For hydrogen fuel to be “greener”, the processes of generating, compressing, storing, moving, and dispensing hydrogen would have to emit less carbon dioxide than merely generating electricity plus the relatively low inefficiencies of grid transmission and charging the batteries.

Not scientifically possible, let alone economically practical.

I can find websites “proving” that perpetual motion is real, too. In fact, there’s not much difference; both claims would require wholesale violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Well put & Accurate! Plus…It’s a”HYDROGEN BOMB” On Four Wheels,, Should it Get in a Wreck. I wonder who allows these things to go on our roads …Clearly Dangerous Obstacle Put On our roads ….WHY????

“The Japanese government should be looking into this. Market Manipulation by the carbon industry.”

Unfortunately it looks like the Japanese voters need to look into this because the government is involved as well

Come on remove your patriotic head from the sand, Big Oil has no citizenship, its a wolrd wide cartel and frontiers are meaningless (as human lifes). Huge corporations have no heart, only money matters. Most of the cartel is America based but it pressure all government of all countries.

your statement about the Volt making FCEVs “obsolete” is absolutely untrue. PHEVs do not work very well in situations where you are consistently doing far more than the planned driving distance. in those circumstances you end up doing more driving on gasoline than on electricity. there are circumstances where BEVs are not very practical.

so there is a need for an FCEV, or a technology that offers the features of this technology. the question right now is: can FCEV develop in such a manner as to be practical? the jury is still out on that, but even if FCEV fails to become practical, hopefully things will be learned that will lead to more practical *EV technologies.

Just more of the good money after bad as I predicted with Toyota, being in for a penny and therefore in for a pound, in the promotion of hydrogen fueled vehicles.

The first pace car in history that runs on bullsh*t.


Zero emission pace car, followed by stock cars burning leaded gasoline.

E for effort NASCAR.

I have to cut NASCAR some slack. Living in the heart of NASCAR country, I applaud them for their uphill battle. They have installed EVSEs at different tracks and have showcased EVs as the pace car multiple times.

So, in the world of nascar where we had awesome paces cars over the years we now get a 4 door sedan with a whopping 100kW electric motor, really? That’s the best you can do Toyota?

If you want to sell a car in front of a Nascar field, make it something cool with lot’s of horsepower, like 691 of them or so. Oh, you don’t make that one, that’s too bad then.

I for one, like reading about Hydrogen cars. It lets me know where the technology is in comparison to EVs. Often the reader response is more interesting than the article.


That’s a good perspective, and a good description of the comment section in a typical hydrogen/FCV story on InsideEVs!

“and continues to develop new breakthroughs in plug-in, electric”

Toyota developing breakthroughs in plug-in and pure electric drive? Really? Maybe some of these breakthroughs are coming to market within the next couple of years?

I don’t care what Toyota do now, they’ll never get my money due to their negative campaign against plug-ins.

Toyota has a prototype pure EV running around with a CCS fast charge port. While what they say in public certainly makes you feel like they’ve got all their eggs in the fuel cell bucket, they do have a significant number of engineers working on plug in technology as well.

Toyota (and Honda and Hyundae) are looking ahead, past the time this counter-productive campaign to push hydrogen fueled cars fizzles out; looking ahead to the inevitable triumph of the EV revolution… which means plug-in cars? Their engineers fully realize the futility of trying to sell cars powered by hydrogen, despite their marketing departments pushing them?

I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say! 😉

Toyota will surely change tack at some point. For now they feel this approach benefits them, and since they know that the average person doesn’t monitor the behaviour of car manufacturers it doesn’t really matter if they change their public stance in the future.

It’s still a disappointment to me though as I always admired them for what they did with the Prius, now I only hold scorn for them.

Jay’s comment that I replied to was deleted/withdrawn. Nevermind. 🙂

Sorry Sven, I only had it up for a few minutes, I didn’t realize anyone had seen it. I decided after posting it that perhaps wasn’t necessary to reply and pulled it back down. I didn’t want to de-rail Mark’s piece unnecessarily.

We really don’t like to see any comments as part of a discussion disappear (other than for ToS/great good issues) so everything is out in the open/uncensored…so in that spirit, I’ve added my comment (and your reply) back into the thread (above).

No problem Jay. You can remove my comment and your comment if you want to keep the discussion in this story on topic. 🙂

No its okay, (= It’s out there now, it should stay…I probably should have just left it in the first place. It isn’t “that” big a distraction

LOL nascar, the biggest waste of gas in the car world

bunch of ugly cars with tacky logos drive circles hundreds of times burning and wasting gas… people are entertained by that? ROFL

What exactly is the point of Nascar? makes no damn sense

Trying to impress the NASCAR crowd with an expensive environmentally conscious car only available in California? Good luck with that. To be fair, I also thought BMW’s decision to push the i3 during the super bowl was a terrible idea. Wrong crowd, wrong car (should have been the i8)

Toyota thinks BEVs are fine for products like their “iRoad” whacky 3 wheeled enclosed scooter thing.

But their serious, mainstream vehicle designs have moved from BEV to Hydrogen.

It saddens me to see a corporation blindly following an agenda that clearly disregards basic physics, climate change, viable economics, and state of the art BEV’s produced in the rest of the world.

WTF is wrong with you, TOYOTA???? *SMACK*