Enthusiast Bias.  It's not conscience.  They have been doing for so many years, they have no idea a bias is being applied... as this clearly illustrates: "This is comparing key/core properties of EVs. (Range, charging speed and efficiency)"  Since when is that core?  For how long was it that hybrids had to prove their worth through reliability and being cost-competitive?  Why are neither of those qualities important for BEV too?  What good is an expensive vehicle you cannot depend upon?  Ugh.  When values are forced upon others without reason, that should be a dead giveaway there is some non-productive influence at play.  The simple example in this case is the sale of BEV to a retired person, like my Mom.  She doesn't need long range, will likely never use a DC fast-charger, and couldn't care less about a vehicle infrequently used not trying to squeeze out every last electron the best way.  If she can afford the vehicle and no longer has to worry about maintenance, mission accomplished.  Plug in at home every night.  Done.  It's that simple.  With regard to the supposed key/core properties, I asked:  According to whom?  Smaller range offerings, like the new ID.4, contradict that claim.  Popularity of Bolt with regard to charging speed does too.  As for efficiency, what true SUV... 8-inch ground-clearance with AWD... are you comparing to?  Some of us see key/core properties as reliability and quality of drive.

Faster Required.  This is when audience really becomes important: "Come on, no one like it being slow, especially when we know it could be faster..."  How is that conclusion being drawn?  The head of our large county here, where there are 16 major parks, sees the situation quite different.  He wants to attract visitors.  Stopping for an hour, hour and a half, is exactly what he's hoping for.  You plug your BEV into a DC fast-charger, then go for a nature walk or visit an attraction.  What is wrong with that?  Stopping for a coffee is the same way.  Starbucks wants you to purchase a food & beverage, staying for awhile.  These destinations want you to be a patron, not just someone passing through.  For locations where you really area just going to use the restroom, stretch your legs, then leave shortly afterward, you won't be doing a full charge anyway.  There will be many other people passing through wanting to do the same thing.  That's why partial recharges are the recommendation.  It's a win-win situation; you take advantage of the fastest part of charging (from roughly 10% to 55%) then move on so the next can do the same.  I replied:  Really?  How often will owners actually use DC fast-charging and be pressed for time and need to charge to 80 percent?  It's an argument that flies in the face of years of EV promotion.  It also feeds naysayers with material claiming the technology isn't ready for the masses yet.  Think about how rare of a situation you are placing a high priority on.

Awareness.  Posts like this are common: "Another news about others EVs losing over 50% range in cold weather, it's not only bZ4X..."  That was how it started, which didn't tell me anything.  I couldn't really even guess purpose until reading this at the end of the post: "Problem with bz4x is not the range, it is the charging speed, especially for the CATL pack."  That's so vague; yet, it still gives a heads up on perspective & motivation.  No ordinary consumer would have such a complaint.  Know your audience.  Mainstream shoppers have basically nothing to work with.  They don't know speed or chemistry.  Heck, awareness of cold weather impact isn't really something that was much talked about even among enthusiasts.  It happened; they dealt with it.  Where is there anything newsworthy in any of this... other than it now including Toyota?  Watching an ID.4 owner last winter discover & address change from lower temperatures didn't cause as much of a stir.  Basically, few were actually paying attention to VW and GM was always just ignored.  But now that Toyota can no longer be claimed as "kicking & screaming" and the "behind" narrative is falling apart, they to come up with something else.  This audience is aware of those circumstances, rendering that rhetoric ineffective... hence the focus on range & speed.  Ugh.  When nonsense like that is stirred, the best response tends to be a short one.  So, I replied with:  Toyota has always be up front about charging speed.  There was never any exaggeration, hence no violation to be fined for.  Some don't like it being slow, but are happy to turn a blind-eye toward the popular selling Bolt which is even slower.

Ground Clearance.  Calling any large vehicle a SUV doesn't make it one.  The next tax-credits are showing that as a very real problem for Tesla.  Criteria for ground-clearance minimum makes Model Y ineligible for the $7,500.  Not qualifying will make already difficult sales situation even worse.  Prices were recently raised to retain a decent profit.  That won't work well for a transition from niche to mainstream.  Tesla is clearly not ready to deal with tiny returns from each sales like the legacy automakers yet.  Pricing that pushes Model Y above the $55,000 maximum as a car is a big problem.  It needs to be recognized as a SUV, which elevates the maximum to $80,000.  The official requirement states the vehicle must have: "Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters."  That is 6.5 inches.  The only exception is if the vehicle seats 7 people.  I remember talking about this specific issue a few months ago with a Model Y owner at a gathering in person, pointing out the necessity to be higher.  This is how I brought attention to that online today:  At our EV events, there was no debate about Model Y being more car like due to the lack of ground clearance.   Not having $7,500 at stake meant that wasn't a point of contention. No big deal, even when I mentioned how much higher bZ4X would ride.  Model Y was enjoying high demand, so all was well. Tesla will someday have to face the reality of small profit margins.  This situation may accelerate that necessity... a consequence of becoming a mainstream automaker.

What's Next?  The big Prius forum has taken on some interesting discussion topics lately.  One that caught my attention was if there would ever be a Camry Prime.  With the market shift to Crossovers and SUVs, for a variety of different reasons, that was an excellent question.  I jumped in with thoughts on the bigger picture for Toyota:  The next-gen Camry is destined for a hybrid-only shift, which I suspect is where it will stay.  We already know Crown & Harrier (Venza) will getting the PHEV treatment.  And with the price of RAV4 Prime being out-of-touch for many and overkill for power, it is pretty much setting the stage for Corolla Cross hybrid to also become PHEV... especially since production is already in the United States.  All that leaves a nice opening for 3S to be rolled out in this market, a sedan bZ variant configured to draw Camry shoppers.  Since 4X is rolling out now, there's been talk of 5X being next, and we were shown a prototype what looked to be a 3X, that would compliment the planned BEV offerings.  Later this month, we'll likely get some detail to that affect when Toyota reveals their revised electrification timeline.

Having Data.  This came about from the mandate discussion: "People are overly concerned about the engine never coming on while the battery is charged."  Much can be learned from PHEV ownership.  I pointed this out:  That's a great example.  We'll see an attitude change.  Remember years back, the introduction of phone-apps as a means of keeping tabs on the status of your vehicle?  As time progressed, new features have been added.  Now, there are digital keys and remote parking.  It's not too far-fetched to imagine mandates being accounted for by tracking vehicle operation.  Credits will be earned by actual real-world usage, rather than just vehicle sales.  Having that data will help with concerns too, like gas use.  A well informed owner won't fill the tank completely.  The car could tell them what minimum is required to cover an upcoming duration.  It's like being able to see your travel history.  Much can be learned by looking back at a one's own timeline.  Notice how range-anxiety can be addressed in the same manner.

Not The Same.  It is intriguing to see the same mantra restated over the years... well, decades.  In this case, it was: "Not all PHEVs will perform equally well under your assumption."  I wasn't assuming anything.  He was really passing back the ball to me so I could add to my prior reply:  The assumption is that a mandate will have strict criteria, raising the bar as a minimum for all PHEV.  We have seen that with ZEV requirements and tax-credit proposals already.  A few years from now when those decisions will be made, people will be better educated.  For me, I have been taken aback by how poorly informed people have been about winter's impact.  There is has been such an obsession with driving-range and charging-speed that the most obvious attribute of EV operation... efficiency... has been seriously overlooked... to the point of neglect.  Just squeezing in more battery to compensate for efficiency shortcoming isn't a real solution.  When it comes to how battery-packs are thermally managed in below freezing temperatures and heat-pump effectiveness threshold, you would think by now discussions were commonplace.  Instead, many are seeing those topics for the first time.  It really puts technology awareness into perspective.  PHEV are far from dead and Toyota isn't really behind as they have been portrayed.  This is basically just the next stage beginning, where industry has proven technology but no good implementation plan yet... hence a consideration of government mandates.

So, odd not noticing the *plugin* hybrid market will soon change to no excuse.  Look at how strong PHEV sales have remained in China, despite such a BEV boom there.

Looking Ahead.  Another friend jumped into the mix today.  I hadn't heard from him in awhile... because most of the groups about Prius Prime died.  There simply wasn't any posting on them anymore due to this generation approaching its end.  The big Prius forum is still active though.  On it today was a discussion about Canada pursuing a 20% sales mandate for 2025.  Requiring that many plug-in vehicles there should be rather interesting.  That country's population is spread over 20 times the amount of land compared to Norway.  Infrastructure challenges will mean quite a bit more of an investment.  It makes you wonder what situation we'll be in then.  That's when the next round of NEVI (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) funding will take place.  By then, the first phase that IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) brought about will be complete.  We'll have primary travel corridors established in each state.  Starting talks of a mandate here would make sense at that point.  People will actually see how we would achieve that.  Currently, there are barely any BEV or DCFC for anyone to even notice, let alone understand detail of what a required quota would entail.  Anywho, here's how that friend drew me into the discussion: "PHEVs with much smaller range works for other people.  For many, 50 miles is way overkill. There is nothing special about the 50 mile threshold.  If such a threshold was to be proposed, it should be based on a statistic...  For example, a PHEV should be subsidized if it allows 50% of commuters to commute on electricity alone."  Plug-In hybrids very much have a place in our future.  Don't let the BEV purists mislead you.  There is indeed some logic to a seemingly arbitrary minimum:  Actually, there is.  37 miles fulfills average daily driving need.  Taking into account cabin-heating demands during winter months (worse time of year for traffic & emissions), you're covered by that capacity.  Having the gas-engine rarely ever run, even under those most demanding circumstances, is how we silence even the most staunch naysayers.  You have that gas-engine as a backup, rendering BEV arguments moot, while at the same time confirming electric propulsion viable for every type of owner... 100% of commuters.

Thanks for providing some vicarious opportunity for me in the meantime.

Blocked Him.  Many found it strange that an admin for the group would be so negative.  On a regular basis, we would get shares for article spreading FUD followed by promotion for Tesla.  Any other venue, he would have simply been label as a "shill" and ignored.  But with him as admin, there was a continuous flow of self-promotion content too.  I basically ended up using that group as a means of learning about the upcoming new audience.  I'll post my content elsewhere.  Such an unfriendly setting doesn't deserve support.  Needless to say, I wouldn't endure long and simply wasn't worth it.  Yesterday was that day.  Like any troll would do, his replies to the group would addressed to me.  A friend pointed out the obvious effort to target me, hoping I would bite.  I didn't; instead, I put a block on him.  As the admin, he found out.  The response was to remove my posting privilege.  No longer able to reply was telling.  But when I dug for the final post thread, I found that even though the count stated 16, when you opened it only 4 remained.  The series of photos & insults were now hidden with only my final post as confirmation of anything else having been there.  I was clearly commented on something no longer visible.  He got caught and I had drawn attention to what he was up to.  Good.  I'm done there.  This is how I let that friend know his source of amusement had come to an end:  With an admin breaking his own rules and being so negative, it was only a matter of time before I left that group.  Like a troll, he was just looking for attention.  After several direct provokes, I called him out then blocked him.  His response was to delete the evidence (12 messages are now missing) and prevent me from posting replies.  Since I am a member of other active groups, why bother?  It's his loss.