John's Stuff - Personal Log 1282

May 18, 2024 - May 27, 2024

Last Updated: Sun. 11/03/2024

5-27-2024 Equinox EV. There was a test-drive event at a local Chevy dealer few days ago. I would have loved to have gone, but plans to be elsewhere at the same time were a priority. Some from our local EV owners group attended. The assessment was summarized by: "It seems like an EV ready for Mainstream America." I would tend to agree with that; however, it falls back to the "up to the chore" history being a grim reminder of what it takes to achieve sales. Proving the technology worth is only a big first step. Enthusiasts forget that. They don't understand why sales just don't magically happen following such an assessment. I tried to arouse discussion with:

This is no different than what we saw with hybrids. The magic question now is how GM handles the transition. With both Two-Mode and Voltec, their approach was a disaster. With Bolt... hopefully lessons learned has resulted in an Equinox EV able to compete directly with Equinox ICE.

From hybrids, it also took a decade to overcome cost & misconception challenges. BEV have the added complication of infrastructure. Its tech is well proven now. That makes the barrier of infrastructure our focus. People not having a place to plug in where they call "home" is a big problem. Households with multiple vehicles tend to be overlooked too.

We will likely see some competitive models of PHEV filling in the gap for BEV from a strong desire for EV but weak support for charging. Toyota is well underway... phasing out many ICE for hybrids, Prius is even becoming PHEV only in Europe, and new models of PHEV are being introduced along with new BEV. That begs the question of GM plans.
Any word on how Equinox EV sales will be managed? I could imagine distribution challenges with limited supply. Minnesota is both an "Advanced Clean Cars I" state and it offers purchase rebates. So, the wait to purchase could be long once initial inventory is sold.

5-25-2024
If You Can't Charge. He just echoed his same statement again: "If you can't charge at home, stick with ICE." I get quite annoyed when all non-BEV are labeled as ICE and wasn't going to accept the implication this time. So, I went back to his original post rather than following any possible reply rhetoric. Hopefully, this will result in some type of constructive feedback: The original assertion of "no real benefit of a PHEV in today's world" was incomplete. Even without plugging in, you'll still get a significant emission & consumption improvement over ICE. That same PHEV will get a means of charging in tomorrow's world, making it a far better choice as a used vehicle later. And of course, there's more and more opportunity charging becoming available at businesses & parks.

5-25-2024
Stick With ICE. That was the advice shared among the early comments in our group from that "Hell No" article. How he could refer to the facts stated as "good reasons" is quite understandable. When you limit audience scope and cherry-pick data, it's very easy to draw such conclusions to not endorse PHEV. But to say non-hybrids are the best alternative, that's crazy. Thankfully, that won't even be an option soon from Toyota for yet another vehicle. At least their fleet is moving forward, addressing those shortcomings by raising the bar for everyone. Of course, there is still the problem of poorly designed PHEV creating challenges. But then again, once Toyota's battery production in the United States gets underway, it will make even less sense for "Hell No" articles to not appear bias. Anywho, I followed up with: With a well-designed PHEV, you get significant reduction of both emissions & consumption. PHEV also enables & promotes the next purchase being a BEV. Think about households struggling with inadequate charging. The second vehicle being a BEV, despite many shortcomings, is a no-brainer decision.

5-25-2024
Hell No. Seeing this article, shared on our local EV owners group, was intriguing: "Plug-In Hybrids? Just Say Hell No". I was quite curious how those in the group would respond. This was my contribution, when only a few comments had been posted: Nothing new. Same old rhetoric. Turning a blind-eye toward the problems such a bridge solution addresses... Cold, hard reality is our public infrastructure is terrible and won't improve to properly solve range & charging anxiety for a number of years still. Same goes for many of the places where people call home. Being stuck with nothing but 120-volt charging means only pulling only enough electricity overnight to deliver roughly 40 miles of EV range (1.44 kW * 8 hours * 3.5 mi/kWh). So even in a perfect world, without fear or misconception, we still have barriers to address.

5-24-2024
Entry-Level Prices. Those affordable vehicles are still just a dream. The message seems to fall on deaf ears too: "These automakers just aren't getting the memo: An EV needs to be $25k, MAX." It really isn't a matter of wanting. Chasing profit for survival was seen as necessary and enthusiast provided a convenient excuse. Eventually, the technology will provide a path back to sensibility. Until then, it's a matter of understanding how this happened and setting realistic expectations: That "nicely under $30,000" memo from GM itself was abandoned. Enthusiast obsession in North America with power & range enabled the mess we're in now. Acknowledging the reality of diminishing returns is not how this market operates. It's really unfortunate. When circumstances get difficult, acceptance of having to sell uninspired vehicles at a razor-thin profit gets delayed as much as possible. Legacy automakers and even Tesla have been avoiding that inevitability. Those who embrace that paradigm-shift coming will do well. We can see $25k being a few years away still, but the days of high-profit sales are numbered. It will happen. Watch expectations change as infrastructure build-up finally starts to become noticeable.

5-23-2024
DCFC Sites. There was an unfortunate accident at the DC fast-charger site I had been really looking forward to. It's at the destination I travel to a few times each year. A worker touch a line that he didn't realize was live. That kind of reminder of the dangers of electricity are an interesting insight into what we have turned a blind-eye toward with regard to fossil fuels. We find ways of making things safe over time. For example, LFP battery chemistry delivers the fire resistance sought after for a very long time. That's why we shouldn't ever look down upon ordinary consumers for wanting to wait. They have turned their sense of caution into a useful outlook of patience. That is rather helpful with regard to new sites being built. From an enthusiast perspective, it seems like that effort is taking forever. From a mainstream perspective, they are right on time. As people are starting to notice plug-in vehicles becoming common, they will see the same for places to recharge while you travel. I chimed into today's discussion on that topic with news of my own: On the topic of my road trips, exactly where I stopped last time on the way home... since this location (my destination) wasn't available yet... the one lone DCFC currently there (2/3 of the way home) will be replaced with an Electrify America site. (The digging permit was just filed this morning.) That's exactly what had been hoped for in the past, an experiment with a limited offering proving the location worthwhile to invest in for more chargers. This further goes to prove range shouldn't be a top purchase priority. Enthusiast obsession has been a disservice to those simply looking for an affordable EV. As more DCFC locations become available, range will be less concern. That's why I admire Toyota. They stick to principle, not going overboard just to please enthusiast short-term focus. Tradeoff can be costly. As the technology enables increased range, it will be provided.

5-22-2024
Late For What? Gotta love how some cannot see beyond the narrative: "I still feel Toyota still going to be late to the party with their next round of EVs even if they made a real effort." This is playing out just like Volt, history is repeating... Back then, they had their own definition of success. It was quite arbitrary and had no real association with actual change of the status quo. Basically, it was just enthusiasts declaring a winner and everyone else losers. That binary mindset with a simplistic goal was all they could see. Either you were leading or you were following. It was a race, not a marathon. Since when does that make sense for vehicle ownership? Not everyone will be looking to purchase tomorrow. There's nothing to be late for when the customer isn't even ready. The "behind" narrative is falling apart. I replied to that nonsense with: What does "late to the party" actually mean? For the early-adopter stage, it was equivalent to being later to a tailgate party... having no impact to play of the game itself. The next stage is to make EVs profitable without subsidy. Knowing Toyota is investing heavily in vehicle & battery production in the United States, without clarity that "late" feeling equates to FUD.

5-22-2024
Lexus RZ300e. Some see this newest offering as a scam rather than an enigma. There was even some speculation of the higher MPGe rating as being a mistake. How could one model be so much more efficient than others. Never taking the time to research or even paying close attention will lead to such beliefs. I'm quite different. My study has revealed that Toyota has been working on improved semi-conductor efficiency for years. Combine that with the next and following generations of electric-motor, you've got the potential for exactly what we are seeing... and seemingly impossible improvement from not having announced anything special. One model just mysteriously outperforms the other in terms of consumption reduction. How? I was amused how that got called magic. It's what I decided to comment upon too, but keeping it short of course: That misses the point. Using the same platform (e-TNGA), they were able to deliver improved efficiency. The so-called "magic efficiency boost" is likely evidence a technology upgrade. Toyota's roadmap clearly shows a next-gen motor was expected. This model rollout could be it.

5-21-2024
Assuming Purpose. Typical enthusiast impatience combined with assumption is what makes posting online so turbulent. Add to that the reality of misinformation, participation in comments of daily articles become a popular pastime. That's how keyboard warriors come about. For example: "You simply cannot give me something with substantially inferior range and charge the same price for it. I know I know...panel gaps and stalks. But...at the very least be equal, then I would happily look at a Toyota. If they charged $35k for it, then it might be an alternative to the Tesla (less range but cheaper) but guess what? Then we have the Equinox lurking with a 300 mile range at $35k. The Toyota is just a non-starter." That tells us what about long-term outcome? When your purpose is to win the war, losing some battles is ok. That's why Toyota sees the practice of selling loss-leaders as a bad idea. Anywho, I chimed into that mess with: Depends upon purpose. Assuming high-volume sales, wanting to establish a strong presence in the market and willingness to sell a loss-leader to achieve that, is incorrect. These initial years are instead to refine their technology prior to going big. Keep in mind, Toyota's reputation for reliability is considered a major selling-point. Rushing to market the way other automakers have won't achieve that. Selling a small number of vehicles will. Limited inventory has proven effective means of reaching a diverse audience too. Notice how the killer lease offers are enticing for those with different priorities? In other words, an assessment of "non-starter" is very much a perspective based on assumed purpose.

5-21-2024 Mega-Hit. There was an article listing three changes that would supposedly make bZ4X a mega-hit. The subtitle of that article said: "People want EVs from Toyota. If the company made some tweaks, it'd have a genuine sales success on its hands." The suggestions of range, speed and price was a waste of an article. That would obviously make a big difference, but how that would be achieved wasn't addressed... hence, pointless. Rather annoyed, I provided some wisdom from recognizing the past repeating:

Toyota's approach with bZ4X closely resembles what they did with Prius. Reaching a wide audience simply wasn't a priority for gen-1. That generation was used to shakeout operation & interface for the purpose of targeting the masses. That's why much of the criticism from enthusiasts seems to not be taken seriously.

Toyota's effort is to test the waters for a better gen-2, ahead of its release with limited consequence from gen-1. That worked extremely well for Prius. Looking at Toyota's technology roadmap, with regard to both battery and motor/invertor improvements, the hoopla we see now is clearly just a narrative to hold onto the early-adopter perspective.

Going mainstream requires a different take on priorities. By the time gen-2 rollout takes place, the market would have changed. We will see far more DCFC due to the combination of government & industry support, as well as the long overdue connector standardization. Production costs would have also significantly dropped.
In short, what we see as rhetoric now will just be a footnote in history. Think about how few actually know about what took place with gen-1 Prius... yet remember the success of gen-2 Prius quiet clearly.

5-20-2024
For Compliance. Assuming Toyota built bZ4X only for the sake of meeting a compliance regulation is quite common. It's what helps feed the narrative, since it sounds plausible. They were apparently forced to sell them; otherwise, they're ability to sell any vehicle in that state would be revoked. Trouble is, no one claiming that can ever provide any proof. That's because there is no such requirement. Toyota is indeed required to provide a minimum inventory in 17 specific states, but there is no requirement to actually sell them. Having inventory available is a mandate for those states who adopted the first level of California rules. The second set wasn't even created until 2022 and won't become active until 2026 model-year sales. Of course, arguments of compliance don't make sense anyway in the 33 states that haven't adopted any rules. I looked up the summary for that second level online. This is what the state of California provided: "The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations were adopted in 2022, imposing the next level of low-emission and zero-emission vehicle standards for model years 2026-2035 that contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality targets." Minnesota is where I live. It just enacted that first level this year. I bought my bZ4X here last year, without any mandate of any sort requiring Toyota to sell it here. When that second level could be adopted is anyone's guess.

5-19-2024
Apologist Spin. With Tesla struggling to redefine itself, apologists will be spinning all kinds of new stories and coming up with new perspectives to defend bad choices of the past. Battery issues were the focus today: "A new battery chemistry has literally nothing to do with Tesla. Battery form factors and cell chemistries are pretty much agnostic of one another. Tesla can just as well use sodium in their cells as any other company in existence if the use case works. That's like saying Toyota is finished because Teslas have wheels." Saying that could happen is an attempt to avoid acknowledging the decision already made, one which failed to yield expected results. I pointed that out with: This impacts Tesla directly. Much of the 4680 supply was redirected from vehicle use to stationary storage. That packaging & chemistry didn't offer enough bag for the buck that way, so Tesla chose to use it where it could provide a better return. Since you mention Toyota, this literally the problem they were trying to avoid... despite countless keyboard-warriors trying to pretend premature lock-in isn't anything to be concerned about. It is necessary for batteries to continue to evolve and their use spread for the paradigm-shift toward EVs to really take hold. Supplementing DCFC with on-site storage should have been obvious as a necessity for cost-effective locations with a larger number of chargers. A chemistry like sodium-ion... which is not impacted by temperature like lithium-ion or lithium-iron-phosphate... is a clear winner for such a use. Those pounding their chests, declaring Tesla victorious, were failing to see the bigger picture and how much more still needs to be established.

5-18-2024 Affordable & Audience. The long-awaited Equinox EV is about to make its debut. Review embargos are over... for the vehicle itself, reviews of the driving experience are still forthcoming. Anywho, its focus is being affordable. That should be looking at all aspects involving what an owner spends. We'll see how that goes. I was quick to post the first comment on one review today that repeated the same mistake on the past, focusing on range. Naturally, I used Toyota as the compare. After all, this same group was relentless... criticizing bZ4X for not being "efficient" but avoiding any acknowledgement of actual consumption. I posted some numbers with a reminder of audience:

It will be interesting to see how the enthusiast community takes to this offering from GM, since mainstream value has always included some type of cost-per-mile measure. How much electricity is consumed should be an important factor when it comes to "affordable" consideration.

Countless reviews for bZ4X stated how inefficient it was... but never actually showed the numbers. That's not journalism. That's feeding a narrative. To be objective, enable readers to decide for themselves. The FWD delivers an EPA rating of 28 kWh/100mi and 31 kWh/100mi for AWD. From Equinox EV, the FWD delivers 31 kWh/100mi and 35 kWh/100mi for AWD.

In terms of cost, lets use a basic $0.15 per kilowatt for the cost of 12,000 miles to get an approximate annual expense from home charging:

$504 = FWD bZ4X
$558 = FWD Equinox EV
$558 = AWD bZ4X
$630 = AWD Equinox EV

That's not a big deal, certainly not like the impact a gallon of gas would cost. Since so many declared road-trips an essential aspect of ownership, we should provide some DCFC numbers too. $0.55 per kilowatt is somewhat typical. For a 1,000 miles of driving from fast-charging, that would be:

$154 = FWD bZ4X
$171 = FWD Equinox EV
$171 = AWD bZ4X
$193 = AWD Equinox EV
Now that "affordable" is becoming a focus, discussion of operational cost should get attention. How much electricity is consumed for travel is a big deal with the early-adopter stage complete. Priorities change as the audience changes.

5-27-2024	Equinox EV. There was a test-drive event at a local Chevy dealer few days ago. I would have loved to have gone, but plans to be elsewhere at the same time were a priority. Some from our local EV owners group attended. The assessment was summarized by: "It seems like an EV ready for Mainstream America." I would tend to agree with that; however, it falls back to the "up to the chore" history being a grim reminder of what it takes to achieve sales. Proving the technology worth is only a big first step. Enthusiasts forget that. They don't understand why sales just don't magically happen following such an assessment. I tried to arouse discussion with: This is no different than what we saw with hybrids. The magic question now is how GM handles the transition. With both Two-Mode and Voltec, their approach was a disaster. With Bolt... hopefully lessons learned has resulted in an Equinox EV able to compete directly with Equinox ICE. From hybrids, it also took a decade to overcome cost & misconception challenges. BEV have the added complication of infrastructure. Its tech is well proven now. That makes the barrier of infrastructure our focus. People not having a place to plug in where they call "home" is a big problem. Households with multiple vehicles tend to be overlooked too. We will likely see some competitive models of PHEV filling in the gap for BEV from a strong desire for EV but weak support for charging. Toyota is well underway... phasing out many ICE for hybrids, Prius is even becoming PHEV only in Europe, and new models of PHEV are being introduced along with new BEV. That begs the question of GM plans. Any word on how Equinox EV sales will be managed? I could imagine distribution challenges with limited supply. Minnesota is both an "Advanced Clean Cars I" state and it offers purchase rebates. So, the wait to purchase could be long once initial inventory is sold.
5-25-2024	If You Can't Charge. He just echoed his same statement again: "If you can't charge at home, stick with ICE." I get quite annoyed when all non-BEV are labeled as ICE and wasn't going to accept the implication this time. So, I went back to his original post rather than following any possible reply rhetoric. Hopefully, this will result in some type of constructive feedback: The original assertion of "no real benefit of a PHEV in today's world" was incomplete. Even without plugging in, you'll still get a significant emission & consumption improvement over ICE. That same PHEV will get a means of charging in tomorrow's world, making it a far better choice as a used vehicle later. And of course, there's more and more opportunity charging becoming available at businesses & parks.
5-25-2024	Stick With ICE. That was the advice shared among the early comments in our group from that "Hell No" article. How he could refer to the facts stated as "good reasons" is quite understandable. When you limit audience scope and cherry-pick data, it's very easy to draw such conclusions to not endorse PHEV. But to say non-hybrids are the best alternative, that's crazy. Thankfully, that won't even be an option soon from Toyota for yet another vehicle. At least their fleet is moving forward, addressing those shortcomings by raising the bar for everyone. Of course, there is still the problem of poorly designed PHEV creating challenges. But then again, once Toyota's battery production in the United States gets underway, it will make even less sense for "Hell No" articles to not appear bias. Anywho, I followed up with: With a well-designed PHEV, you get significant reduction of both emissions & consumption. PHEV also enables & promotes the next purchase being a BEV. Think about households struggling with inadequate charging. The second vehicle being a BEV, despite many shortcomings, is a no-brainer decision.
5-25-2024	Hell No. Seeing this article, shared on our local EV owners group, was intriguing: "Plug-In Hybrids? Just Say Hell No". I was quite curious how those in the group would respond. This was my contribution, when only a few comments had been posted: Nothing new. Same old rhetoric. Turning a blind-eye toward the problems such a bridge solution addresses... Cold, hard reality is our public infrastructure is terrible and won't improve to properly solve range & charging anxiety for a number of years still. Same goes for many of the places where people call home. Being stuck with nothing but 120-volt charging means only pulling only enough electricity overnight to deliver roughly 40 miles of EV range (1.44 kW * 8 hours * 3.5 mi/kWh). So even in a perfect world, without fear or misconception, we still have barriers to address.
5-24-2024	Entry-Level Prices. Those affordable vehicles are still just a dream. The message seems to fall on deaf ears too: "These automakers just aren't getting the memo: An EV needs to be $25k, MAX." It really isn't a matter of wanting. Chasing profit for survival was seen as necessary and enthusiast provided a convenient excuse. Eventually, the technology will provide a path back to sensibility. Until then, it's a matter of understanding how this happened and setting realistic expectations: That "nicely under $30,000" memo from GM itself was abandoned. Enthusiast obsession in North America with power & range enabled the mess we're in now. Acknowledging the reality of diminishing returns is not how this market operates. It's really unfortunate. When circumstances get difficult, acceptance of having to sell uninspired vehicles at a razor-thin profit gets delayed as much as possible. Legacy automakers and even Tesla have been avoiding that inevitability. Those who embrace that paradigm-shift coming will do well. We can see $25k being a few years away still, but the days of high-profit sales are numbered. It will happen. Watch expectations change as infrastructure build-up finally starts to become noticeable.
5-23-2024	DCFC Sites. There was an unfortunate accident at the DC fast-charger site I had been really looking forward to. It's at the destination I travel to a few times each year. A worker touch a line that he didn't realize was live. That kind of reminder of the dangers of electricity are an interesting insight into what we have turned a blind-eye toward with regard to fossil fuels. We find ways of making things safe over time. For example, LFP battery chemistry delivers the fire resistance sought after for a very long time. That's why we shouldn't ever look down upon ordinary consumers for wanting to wait. They have turned their sense of caution into a useful outlook of patience. That is rather helpful with regard to new sites being built. From an enthusiast perspective, it seems like that effort is taking forever. From a mainstream perspective, they are right on time. As people are starting to notice plug-in vehicles becoming common, they will see the same for places to recharge while you travel. I chimed into today's discussion on that topic with news of my own: On the topic of my road trips, exactly where I stopped last time on the way home... since this location (my destination) wasn't available yet... the one lone DCFC currently there (2/3 of the way home) will be replaced with an Electrify America site. (The digging permit was just filed this morning.) That's exactly what had been hoped for in the past, an experiment with a limited offering proving the location worthwhile to invest in for more chargers. This further goes to prove range shouldn't be a top purchase priority. Enthusiast obsession has been a disservice to those simply looking for an affordable EV. As more DCFC locations become available, range will be less concern. That's why I admire Toyota. They stick to principle, not going overboard just to please enthusiast short-term focus. Tradeoff can be costly. As the technology enables increased range, it will be provided.
5-22-2024	Late For What? Gotta love how some cannot see beyond the narrative: "I still feel Toyota still going to be late to the party with their next round of EVs even if they made a real effort." This is playing out just like Volt, history is repeating... Back then, they had their own definition of success. It was quite arbitrary and had no real association with actual change of the status quo. Basically, it was just enthusiasts declaring a winner and everyone else losers. That binary mindset with a simplistic goal was all they could see. Either you were leading or you were following. It was a race, not a marathon. Since when does that make sense for vehicle ownership? Not everyone will be looking to purchase tomorrow. There's nothing to be late for when the customer isn't even ready. The "behind" narrative is falling apart. I replied to that nonsense with: What does "late to the party" actually mean? For the early-adopter stage, it was equivalent to being later to a tailgate party... having no impact to play of the game itself. The next stage is to make EVs profitable without subsidy. Knowing Toyota is investing heavily in vehicle & battery production in the United States, without clarity that "late" feeling equates to FUD.
5-22-2024	Lexus RZ300e. Some see this newest offering as a scam rather than an enigma. There was even some speculation of the higher MPGe rating as being a mistake. How could one model be so much more efficient than others. Never taking the time to research or even paying close attention will lead to such beliefs. I'm quite different. My study has revealed that Toyota has been working on improved semi-conductor efficiency for years. Combine that with the next and following generations of electric-motor, you've got the potential for exactly what we are seeing... and seemingly impossible improvement from not having announced anything special. One model just mysteriously outperforms the other in terms of consumption reduction. How? I was amused how that got called magic. It's what I decided to comment upon too, but keeping it short of course: That misses the point. Using the same platform (e-TNGA), they were able to deliver improved efficiency. The so-called "magic efficiency boost" is likely evidence a technology upgrade. Toyota's roadmap clearly shows a next-gen motor was expected. This model rollout could be it.
5-21-2024	Assuming Purpose. Typical enthusiast impatience combined with assumption is what makes posting online so turbulent. Add to that the reality of misinformation, participation in comments of daily articles become a popular pastime. That's how keyboard warriors come about. For example: "You simply cannot give me something with substantially inferior range and charge the same price for it. I know I know...panel gaps and stalks. But...at the very least be equal, then I would happily look at a Toyota. If they charged $35k for it, then it might be an alternative to the Tesla (less range but cheaper) but guess what? Then we have the Equinox lurking with a 300 mile range at $35k. The Toyota is just a non-starter." That tells us what about long-term outcome? When your purpose is to win the war, losing some battles is ok. That's why Toyota sees the practice of selling loss-leaders as a bad idea. Anywho, I chimed into that mess with: Depends upon purpose. Assuming high-volume sales, wanting to establish a strong presence in the market and willingness to sell a loss-leader to achieve that, is incorrect. These initial years are instead to refine their technology prior to going big. Keep in mind, Toyota's reputation for reliability is considered a major selling-point. Rushing to market the way other automakers have won't achieve that. Selling a small number of vehicles will. Limited inventory has proven effective means of reaching a diverse audience too. Notice how the killer lease offers are enticing for those with different priorities? In other words, an assessment of "non-starter" is very much a perspective based on assumed purpose.
5-21-2024	Mega-Hit. There was an article listing three changes that would supposedly make bZ4X a mega-hit. The subtitle of that article said: "People want EVs from Toyota. If the company made some tweaks, it'd have a genuine sales success on its hands." The suggestions of range, speed and price was a waste of an article. That would obviously make a big difference, but how that would be achieved wasn't addressed... hence, pointless. Rather annoyed, I provided some wisdom from recognizing the past repeating: Toyota's approach with bZ4X closely resembles what they did with Prius. Reaching a wide audience simply wasn't a priority for gen-1. That generation was used to shakeout operation & interface for the purpose of targeting the masses. That's why much of the criticism from enthusiasts seems to not be taken seriously. Toyota's effort is to test the waters for a better gen-2, ahead of its release with limited consequence from gen-1. That worked extremely well for Prius. Looking at Toyota's technology roadmap, with regard to both battery and motor/invertor improvements, the hoopla we see now is clearly just a narrative to hold onto the early-adopter perspective. Going mainstream requires a different take on priorities. By the time gen-2 rollout takes place, the market would have changed. We will see far more DCFC due to the combination of government & industry support, as well as the long overdue connector standardization. Production costs would have also significantly dropped. In short, what we see as rhetoric now will just be a footnote in history. Think about how few actually know about what took place with gen-1 Prius... yet remember the success of gen-2 Prius quiet clearly.
5-20-2024	For Compliance. Assuming Toyota built bZ4X only for the sake of meeting a compliance regulation is quite common. It's what helps feed the narrative, since it sounds plausible. They were apparently forced to sell them; otherwise, they're ability to sell any vehicle in that state would be revoked. Trouble is, no one claiming that can ever provide any proof. That's because there is no such requirement. Toyota is indeed required to provide a minimum inventory in 17 specific states, but there is no requirement to actually sell them. Having inventory available is a mandate for those states who adopted the first level of California rules. The second set wasn't even created until 2022 and won't become active until 2026 model-year sales. Of course, arguments of compliance don't make sense anyway in the 33 states that haven't adopted any rules. I looked up the summary for that second level online. This is what the state of California provided: "The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations were adopted in 2022, imposing the next level of low-emission and zero-emission vehicle standards for model years 2026-2035 that contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality targets." Minnesota is where I live. It just enacted that first level this year. I bought my bZ4X here last year, without any mandate of any sort requiring Toyota to sell it here. When that second level could be adopted is anyone's guess.
5-19-2024	Apologist Spin. With Tesla struggling to redefine itself, apologists will be spinning all kinds of new stories and coming up with new perspectives to defend bad choices of the past. Battery issues were the focus today: "A new battery chemistry has literally nothing to do with Tesla. Battery form factors and cell chemistries are pretty much agnostic of one another. Tesla can just as well use sodium in their cells as any other company in existence if the use case works. That's like saying Toyota is finished because Teslas have wheels." Saying that could happen is an attempt to avoid acknowledging the decision already made, one which failed to yield expected results. I pointed that out with: This impacts Tesla directly. Much of the 4680 supply was redirected from vehicle use to stationary storage. That packaging & chemistry didn't offer enough bag for the buck that way, so Tesla chose to use it where it could provide a better return. Since you mention Toyota, this literally the problem they were trying to avoid... despite countless keyboard-warriors trying to pretend premature lock-in isn't anything to be concerned about. It is necessary for batteries to continue to evolve and their use spread for the paradigm-shift toward EVs to really take hold. Supplementing DCFC with on-site storage should have been obvious as a necessity for cost-effective locations with a larger number of chargers. A chemistry like sodium-ion... which is not impacted by temperature like lithium-ion or lithium-iron-phosphate... is a clear winner for such a use. Those pounding their chests, declaring Tesla victorious, were failing to see the bigger picture and how much more still needs to be established.
5-18-2024	Affordable & Audience. The long-awaited Equinox EV is about to make its debut. Review embargos are over... for the vehicle itself, reviews of the driving experience are still forthcoming. Anywho, its focus is being affordable. That should be looking at all aspects involving what an owner spends. We'll see how that goes. I was quick to post the first comment on one review today that repeated the same mistake on the past, focusing on range. Naturally, I used Toyota as the compare. After all, this same group was relentless... criticizing bZ4X for not being "efficient" but avoiding any acknowledgement of actual consumption. I posted some numbers with a reminder of audience: It will be interesting to see how the enthusiast community takes to this offering from GM, since mainstream value has always included some type of cost-per-mile measure. How much electricity is consumed should be an important factor when it comes to "affordable" consideration. Countless reviews for bZ4X stated how inefficient it was... but never actually showed the numbers. That's not journalism. That's feeding a narrative. To be objective, enable readers to decide for themselves. The FWD delivers an EPA rating of 28 kWh/100mi and 31 kWh/100mi for AWD. From Equinox EV, the FWD delivers 31 kWh/100mi and 35 kWh/100mi for AWD. In terms of cost, lets use a basic $0.15 per kilowatt for the cost of 12,000 miles to get an approximate annual expense from home charging: $504 = FWD bZ4X $558 = FWD Equinox EV $558 = AWD bZ4X $630 = AWD Equinox EV That's not a big deal, certainly not like the impact a gallon of gas would cost. Since so many declared road-trips an essential aspect of ownership, we should provide some DCFC numbers too. $0.55 per kilowatt is somewhat typical. For a 1,000 miles of driving from fast-charging, that would be: $154 = FWD bZ4X $171 = FWD Equinox EV $171 = AWD bZ4X $193 = AWD Equinox EV Now that "affordable" is becoming a focus, discussion of operational cost should get attention. How much electricity is consumed for travel is a big deal with the early-adopter stage complete. Priorities change as the audience changes.