John's Stuff - Personal Log 1293

August 30, 2024 - September 15, 2024

Last Updated: Mon. 11/04/2024

9-15-2024
Nope. After several days of not seeing anything worthy of even just a simple reply, this surfaced: "Well, it's not about the charger but the capacity of the vehicle. You shouldn't use 350kw as our cars max are 100kw for the AWD and 150kw for the FWD, you're gonna piss off someone with a car that can actually achieve that speed." Clearly, the poster of that hasn't been paying attention. The internet suddenly got flooded with information in regard to amperage. Labeling of chargers has been declared misleading. If a faster station is available, you should feel free to use it. So what if the value listed isn't achievable? The higher number for kW equates to higher amp output. That's what is needed for faster. If someone there complains, explain why. Show them the plate on the hardware itself. Every cord is required to specify volts & amps that hardware was designed to deliver. It's simple to understand, just basic math. To the nonsense those still not paying attention are shoveling, I join in and say: Nope, it's fine to use a 350 kW. That's because 150 kW chargers top out at 200 amps, which limits draw to 71 kW. To get faster, you have to use a charger capable of handling greater load. In other words, the labeling is not really representative of what you actually get.

9-11-2024
Facts Don't Matter. When a person has already made up their mind, facts don't matter. This narrative is so weak, how can anything constructive come out of a reply: "Toyota has made us doubt every move they make with regards to EVs. Not long ago, they were still stuck on hydrogen. They may still be. I would not hold my breath. Sad because I like the brand so far." I try to get some type of usefulness from an exchange. It's basically pointless to the poster of that comment. Lurkers reading it will walk away better informed though. Notice how vague the comment was. Think about it. What doubt? Which moves? How long ago? I fired back with: Not sure what you mean by "stuck", since I watched Toyota evolve their PHEV tech. Notice how gen-1 started simple, then gen-2 increased power & speed while also introducing a heat-pump... 8 years ago. Since then, gen-3 has been rolled out with greater range and spread to several other vehicles. That same EV tech in the PHEV is shared in their BEV. So, it doesn't make sense having an impression that hydrogen was somehow preventing plug-in choices.

9-11-2024
Which Is It? Gotta love those post-debate interviews that ask proper questions: "On one hand, he's saying that EVs are never going to succeed, and on the other he's saying that China is going to flood our market with cheap electric vehicles, and everyone's going to buy them. So which one is it?" It was a thought-provoking outcome from an interview originating from Detroit. Such contradiction in a single statement is telling. The former president portrays an industry of failure that's about to see lots of sales. Ugh. How stupid does he think his followers are? A recent rally in the Detroit area attempted to convey the message of jobs being lost, despite the location being near a new EV production plant being built. It makes no sense. Messaging conflicts are blatant. What's being said is the opposite of what people are actually seeing. That's why Toyota's momentum is so unstoppable. No matter how much rhetoric is stirred online, the sight of hybrids everywhere tells a very different story. That's why I have people come up to me when I'm plugging in at the grocery store or loading my bike at the trail to ask about the vehicle. What they see compels them to learn more. Perhaps the contradiction is what stirs interest. Why were they being told something entirely different?

9-11-2024
More Amps. The message is finally starting to break through. There are hints of critical thinking finally. Phew! It's so refreshing to be sharing something useful now, a sign that playing offense will soon happen. That switch from defense is a nature progression, an easy indicator of change to detect. Posts like this become more common: As pointed out, charging is a curve... you get faster when charge-level is low. It slows significantly for any EV once you hit 60%. The bigger takeaway from recent industry quibble is the fact that "fast" chargers don't always deliver what their stated kW rate says. It actually depends upon total AMPs the charger itself can handle. In other words, you will get faster charging from a 350 kW charger than a 150 kW charger, despite charging speed never coming close to 150 kW. The math is simple. 355 volts (nominal for Solterra/bZ4X) times 200 amps (max from a 150 kW charger) will give you 71 kW. Being able to pull more amps is key. 275 amps will deliver 97 kW. In other words, take advantage of the faster rated charger if available.

9-10-2024
Tesla Outlook. Next month will draw attention away from Cybertruck, focusing it on Tesla's next folly... RoboTaxi. How is that going to be useful for the masses anytime within the next decade? Ugh. Of course, focusing on the here & now tends to distort such a reality: "Did you know that the Tesla Model Y was the highest selling model worldwide in 2023, beating every other car or truck at two million units?" Results from short-term efforts to boost sales is exactly the wrong thing to focus on. It only makes a bad situation worse by pushing Tesla's absence of diversity even more. How many new Model Y can be sold before the market is completely saturated? We are already seeing pricing conflicts and build up of used vehicles. More of the same is the wrong approach. Some still don't see that though. Meanwhile, I'll continue to point it out until they do: Tesla has been very quite interesting to watch, a textbook example of Innovator's Dilemma. That means they produce very compelling choices for enthusiasts, but struggle to reach beyond that audience. Dropping prices to compete, a shift to a low-profit paradigm, delivered great sales so far. Long term, there are tough decisions to make... so of which will stir conflict. It's a good sign though, since doing that will ensure strong sales continue.

9-09-2024
What Debacle? Toyota is making progress with their solid-state battery production plans. They recently got approval from Japan's government to proceed. Each step gets them closer. Yet, we still get nonsense like this: "There's their hydrogen debacle, which was a pretty big miss on their part, combined with their insistence that we don't want EV's, when sales data showed otherwise." It's a narrative that's becoming increasingly more difficult to sell. Who's going to be convinced of a hydrogen focus when the only thing most people see is hybrids and an occasional plug-in from Toyota? Of course, at this point I don't have to care. It is super easy to direct attention back at those trying to push the narrative: Sales data shows us they have been investing wisely. Quite unlike some other legacy automakers (GM, Ford, VW), existing BEV production does not need to be throttled down. Their planned allotment are seeing distribution diversity, a shared success approach Prius took. As for debacles (money spent that did nothing to advance emission/efficiency tech), look no further than Tesla's FSD.

9-08-2024
Labels. Some like to feed rhetoric: "But what do they mean by "EV"? Is that BEV or PHEV?" That was easy to respond to: That line becomes rather obvious when you take upcoming mandates into account. PHEV will require increased electric-only distances to qualify for tax & carbon credits. As battery capacity increases, that enables more power and longer travel with cabin heating & cooling. We will witness the ICE devolve. From a consumer perspective, the role of ICE as just a backup will become the expectation. Labels won't matter. If it has a plug, it must deliver EV miles. They won't care about labels or even how the "all in" pledges fell apart. If it has a plug, they will be able to do most driving with electricity. Put another way, some BEV supporters have loss sight of purpose by endorsing electricity guzzlers. Having to use with massive battery-packs to compensate doesn't really send a message of benefit to those perfectly content with new ICE purchases. PHEV offer a different approach for "EV" appeal, allowing phaseout of ICE to spread.

9-07-2024
Video: Route Planner (driver view). This test footage of the route-planner turned out so well, I decided to add some narration and share it. On the screen is the ABRP app, actively providing navigation information. You can see my drive from the neighborhood near where I live to the nearest Electrify America charging station... Toyota bZ4X - Route Planner (driver view)

9-06-2024
Scaling Back. News today was that Toyota would be scaling back their BEV production plans. So what? The entire industry is seeing a slow down; though, the effect is more pronounced for vehicles with a plug. Progress is always slow and there will be stumbles along the way. It's still moving forward. Growth is still growth. It messes up the "behind" narrative though. Toyota's slower pace was portrayed as an inability to ever catch up. But as the tortoise & hare story taught us, faster doesn't mean you won't ever have any setbacks... like pledging "all in" but not having a transition plan. I was always amazed at how gullible people have been, especially enthusiasts. They see & hear what they want. It's unfortunate. It's reality though. Having to scale back due to some type of external influence causing plans to hiccup isn't the end of the world, regardless of what some claim.

9-05-2024 Real-World. That affordable model is stirring attention. The front-wheel drive Equinox EV. Observation of real-world efficiency delivered "3.4 mi/kWh from 303 miles of driving at 70 mph". My bZ4X actually delivers slightly better, despite having a higher ground-clearance and AWD. But that isn't the point. GM has been striving to actually offer something affordable. Kudos to them. Interestingly, that stirs comments like this: "When are we going to see a similar test for the Subaru? That's the one I really want to see if it under or over-performs. I think it might over-perform, but the question is by how much." It's another sign of progress. Phew! In the past, it was just dismissal. Asking questions and wondering is a huge improvement. I contributed to the discussion with my own observations: 3.4 mi/kWh from my AWD bZ4X with 20" wheels in similar temperature (around 80°F) is what I have real-world observed at 70 mph. Efficiency climbs to 3.8 mi/kWh at 65 mph. It will hit 5.0 mi/kWh in suburb driving. I did a 102-mile round-trip a few weeks ago with a bike on back (platform hitch rack). It was almost entirely at 65 mph with A/C (temp was mid-80's). The result was 3.1 mi/kWh. Last weekend, we did a 47-mile round-trip drive with 2 bikes on back. Temperature was mid-70's and speed was a mix of suburb & highway. That ended up at 4.0 mi/kWh.

9-04-2024 More At Play. Although attention is still directed to range, this was progress: "Because the Chevy Equinox EV is the same price and goes 80 miles further on a charge." It's because the overall tone of the discussion changed. Rather than dismissal or personal attack, there was a hint of critical though stirring. It presented the opportunity for more exchanging:

Engineering tradeoffs present an interesting choice.

288 volts = Chevy Equinox EV
355 volts = Subaru Solterra / Toyota bZ4X

Higher pack voltage equates to faster DC charging from the same charger. For example, it is very common to find 200-amp chargers. From 288 volts, you get 57.6 kW. From 355 volts, you get 71 kW.
In other words, even with basic priority consideration, there can be more to than just range at play.

9-02-2024 Bigger Picture. It's coming into focus: "Biggest problem is definitely the nominal voltage being sub-290V and that meaning to even hit the already miserable 150kW peak charge rate you have to use a 500A+ capable CCS charger, which means you will be taking up the limited number of 350kW chargers just so your car can briefly get 150kW. GM should be ashamed for doing this. The car should be capable of 150kW on any 150kW capable charger, meaning nominal voltage should be 400V." Discussions with substance, though a bit distracted by emotion. How long did that take? I jumped in with:

Shame for trying to deliver something affordable? True, 288 volts from a 200-amp charger will only provide 57.6 kW. But that speed worked fine for Bolt in the past. Owners still got around just fine. Of course, Toyota was crucified for their 355-volt system. At 200 amps, that's 71 kW... which was declared far too slow. It puts those here in a difficult spot. Do they really want to shoot themselves in the foot by shaming GM?

You know customers shopping for a replacement of their old Equinox ICE will take a close look at Equinox EV. Isn't that something we should be heavily promoting? Don't we want to reach a new audience, expanding the market to those who won't consider DCFC speed a vital priority? Again, we saw Bolt owners managing road trips in the past.
Think about NEVI funding. You know those 150 kW stations will almost certainly top out at 200 amps. But the more usage they document, the greater likelihood budgets for phase-2 will be increased. After all, the point of a business sponsoring a site is to stir patronage. Too fast would be counter-productive, not giving owners any reason to check out the business while they wait.

9-01-2024
AMP Limitations. Finally, some substance. Of course, the exchange didn't start with it: "BZ4X takes 35-45 minutes." But since the origin of that comment came about from a topic discussing DC charging speed, it was on topic. It enabled me to ask: What's the significance of that comment? From a DCFC station with a 200-amp limit, bZ4X would be able to pull 71 kW. That seems slow until you realize it is a constraint with regard to pack voltage of 355. Since Blazer & Equinox are quite a bit lower, at just 288 volts, max rate from that same DCFC would only be 57.6 kW.

8-31-2024
Plug-In Vehicle Info-Sheet. 23 years ago, a group of the first Prius owners got together to create documents to share. These were online & printable materials to help stir interest and educate those curious about the technology. One of the really successful outcomes of that effort was an "Info-Sheet", a single sheet of paper conveying basic information. Copies of this could be made for distribution at events where the vehicle was on display. Decades later, I am attempting to do the same for us. Here is the first draft for feedback. It's just an image now, since that is what is easy to share in Facebook. Later, it will become a PDF file you can download. What do you think? Plug-In Vehicle Info-Sheet

8-30-2024 Arbitrary Values. Here's a long-winded example of nonsense repetition: "I don't see how time spent charging on a recreational "road trip" is irrelevant. No one wants to spend vacation time charging their car, particularly 3x a day. Although it could be a new Facebook category that no one is interested in, like posting pictures of restaurant food. "Here's where we charged the car the third time today." If a car had real range something in excess of 300 miles then the recharge time could be limited to one stop (assuming the ability to charge overnight)." It always comes down to the antagonist choosing an arbitrary value to argue. Our trips to visit my sister-in-law & kids was 750 miles. The other direction to family was 700 miles. Both are also arbitrary, but they are the only examples which fall beyond the range already supported. Even my trips up north are covered just fine. So, I asked:

Since when is 300 miles relevant to ordinary need of most consumers? That is 4 to 5 hours of travel. Weekend warriors don't drive that far. Their routine trek to the summer cabin is only 2 to 3 hours... less than 200 miles. In other words, they charge to 100% before leaving home, then plug in when arriving at their destination.

Arbitrary limits have been a common tactic for rhetoric. With infrastructure so lacking and so unreliable, it's simply not realistic trying to portray the current BEV market as being directly competitive with ICE yet. In fact, that is why industry interest for PHEV is becoming so strong.

Focus on extremes is confirmation of status. Enthusiasts don't want to celebrate technology progress. Sending a clear message of future BEV potential is instead squandered by an effort to belittle traits they arbitrarily deem inadequate. What a waste.
Fortunately, mainstream shoppers really don't care. Nonsense online doesn't reach them. They'll see DCFC stations being built and will figure out they can reach the their routine escape, having somewhere to stop to charge along the way just in case.

8-30-2024
Repeat Nonsense. It is fascinating to watch history repeat. Antagonists attack what that don't like, then attempt to change the topic when confronted for detail. With nothing to back their statements, it becomes undeniable they see what you present as a threat. They don't like their own status quo to be disrupted. I enjoy doing exactly that. I'm all to happy to point it out too: It has been very informative watching the effort to evade actual vehicle operation, never an acknowledgement of mi/kWh. Reality is, range sighted as "poor" was the result of driving at nothing but highest speeds on the highway; mi/kWh clearly confirms. Ordinary day to day driving provides much better results. This request for what to review will reveal that... which will derail the narrative dependent upon an extreme with the intent to mislead.

9-15-2024	Nope. After several days of not seeing anything worthy of even just a simple reply, this surfaced: "Well, it's not about the charger but the capacity of the vehicle. You shouldn't use 350kw as our cars max are 100kw for the AWD and 150kw for the FWD, you're gonna piss off someone with a car that can actually achieve that speed." Clearly, the poster of that hasn't been paying attention. The internet suddenly got flooded with information in regard to amperage. Labeling of chargers has been declared misleading. If a faster station is available, you should feel free to use it. So what if the value listed isn't achievable? The higher number for kW equates to higher amp output. That's what is needed for faster. If someone there complains, explain why. Show them the plate on the hardware itself. Every cord is required to specify volts & amps that hardware was designed to deliver. It's simple to understand, just basic math. To the nonsense those still not paying attention are shoveling, I join in and say: Nope, it's fine to use a 350 kW. That's because 150 kW chargers top out at 200 amps, which limits draw to 71 kW. To get faster, you have to use a charger capable of handling greater load. In other words, the labeling is not really representative of what you actually get.
9-11-2024	Facts Don't Matter. When a person has already made up their mind, facts don't matter. This narrative is so weak, how can anything constructive come out of a reply: "Toyota has made us doubt every move they make with regards to EVs. Not long ago, they were still stuck on hydrogen. They may still be. I would not hold my breath. Sad because I like the brand so far." I try to get some type of usefulness from an exchange. It's basically pointless to the poster of that comment. Lurkers reading it will walk away better informed though. Notice how vague the comment was. Think about it. What doubt? Which moves? How long ago? I fired back with: Not sure what you mean by "stuck", since I watched Toyota evolve their PHEV tech. Notice how gen-1 started simple, then gen-2 increased power & speed while also introducing a heat-pump... 8 years ago. Since then, gen-3 has been rolled out with greater range and spread to several other vehicles. That same EV tech in the PHEV is shared in their BEV. So, it doesn't make sense having an impression that hydrogen was somehow preventing plug-in choices.
9-11-2024	Which Is It? Gotta love those post-debate interviews that ask proper questions: "On one hand, he's saying that EVs are never going to succeed, and on the other he's saying that China is going to flood our market with cheap electric vehicles, and everyone's going to buy them. So which one is it?" It was a thought-provoking outcome from an interview originating from Detroit. Such contradiction in a single statement is telling. The former president portrays an industry of failure that's about to see lots of sales. Ugh. How stupid does he think his followers are? A recent rally in the Detroit area attempted to convey the message of jobs being lost, despite the location being near a new EV production plant being built. It makes no sense. Messaging conflicts are blatant. What's being said is the opposite of what people are actually seeing. That's why Toyota's momentum is so unstoppable. No matter how much rhetoric is stirred online, the sight of hybrids everywhere tells a very different story. That's why I have people come up to me when I'm plugging in at the grocery store or loading my bike at the trail to ask about the vehicle. What they see compels them to learn more. Perhaps the contradiction is what stirs interest. Why were they being told something entirely different?
9-11-2024	More Amps. The message is finally starting to break through. There are hints of critical thinking finally. Phew! It's so refreshing to be sharing something useful now, a sign that playing offense will soon happen. That switch from defense is a nature progression, an easy indicator of change to detect. Posts like this become more common: As pointed out, charging is a curve... you get faster when charge-level is low. It slows significantly for any EV once you hit 60%. The bigger takeaway from recent industry quibble is the fact that "fast" chargers don't always deliver what their stated kW rate says. It actually depends upon total AMPs the charger itself can handle. In other words, you will get faster charging from a 350 kW charger than a 150 kW charger, despite charging speed never coming close to 150 kW. The math is simple. 355 volts (nominal for Solterra/bZ4X) times 200 amps (max from a 150 kW charger) will give you 71 kW. Being able to pull more amps is key. 275 amps will deliver 97 kW. In other words, take advantage of the faster rated charger if available.
9-10-2024	Tesla Outlook. Next month will draw attention away from Cybertruck, focusing it on Tesla's next folly... RoboTaxi. How is that going to be useful for the masses anytime within the next decade? Ugh. Of course, focusing on the here & now tends to distort such a reality: "Did you know that the Tesla Model Y was the highest selling model worldwide in 2023, beating every other car or truck at two million units?" Results from short-term efforts to boost sales is exactly the wrong thing to focus on. It only makes a bad situation worse by pushing Tesla's absence of diversity even more. How many new Model Y can be sold before the market is completely saturated? We are already seeing pricing conflicts and build up of used vehicles. More of the same is the wrong approach. Some still don't see that though. Meanwhile, I'll continue to point it out until they do: Tesla has been very quite interesting to watch, a textbook example of Innovator's Dilemma. That means they produce very compelling choices for enthusiasts, but struggle to reach beyond that audience. Dropping prices to compete, a shift to a low-profit paradigm, delivered great sales so far. Long term, there are tough decisions to make... so of which will stir conflict. It's a good sign though, since doing that will ensure strong sales continue.
9-09-2024	What Debacle? Toyota is making progress with their solid-state battery production plans. They recently got approval from Japan's government to proceed. Each step gets them closer. Yet, we still get nonsense like this: "There's their hydrogen debacle, which was a pretty big miss on their part, combined with their insistence that we don't want EV's, when sales data showed otherwise." It's a narrative that's becoming increasingly more difficult to sell. Who's going to be convinced of a hydrogen focus when the only thing most people see is hybrids and an occasional plug-in from Toyota? Of course, at this point I don't have to care. It is super easy to direct attention back at those trying to push the narrative: Sales data shows us they have been investing wisely. Quite unlike some other legacy automakers (GM, Ford, VW), existing BEV production does not need to be throttled down. Their planned allotment are seeing distribution diversity, a shared success approach Prius took. As for debacles (money spent that did nothing to advance emission/efficiency tech), look no further than Tesla's FSD.
9-08-2024	Labels. Some like to feed rhetoric: "But what do they mean by "EV"? Is that BEV or PHEV?" That was easy to respond to: That line becomes rather obvious when you take upcoming mandates into account. PHEV will require increased electric-only distances to qualify for tax & carbon credits. As battery capacity increases, that enables more power and longer travel with cabin heating & cooling. We will witness the ICE devolve. From a consumer perspective, the role of ICE as just a backup will become the expectation. Labels won't matter. If it has a plug, it must deliver EV miles. They won't care about labels or even how the "all in" pledges fell apart. If it has a plug, they will be able to do most driving with electricity. Put another way, some BEV supporters have loss sight of purpose by endorsing electricity guzzlers. Having to use with massive battery-packs to compensate doesn't really send a message of benefit to those perfectly content with new ICE purchases. PHEV offer a different approach for "EV" appeal, allowing phaseout of ICE to spread.
9-07-2024	Video: Route Planner (driver view). This test footage of the route-planner turned out so well, I decided to add some narration and share it. On the screen is the ABRP app, actively providing navigation information. You can see my drive from the neighborhood near where I live to the nearest Electrify America charging station... Toyota bZ4X - Route Planner (driver view)
9-06-2024	Scaling Back. News today was that Toyota would be scaling back their BEV production plans. So what? The entire industry is seeing a slow down; though, the effect is more pronounced for vehicles with a plug. Progress is always slow and there will be stumbles along the way. It's still moving forward. Growth is still growth. It messes up the "behind" narrative though. Toyota's slower pace was portrayed as an inability to ever catch up. But as the tortoise & hare story taught us, faster doesn't mean you won't ever have any setbacks... like pledging "all in" but not having a transition plan. I was always amazed at how gullible people have been, especially enthusiasts. They see & hear what they want. It's unfortunate. It's reality though. Having to scale back due to some type of external influence causing plans to hiccup isn't the end of the world, regardless of what some claim.
9-05-2024	Real-World. That affordable model is stirring attention. The front-wheel drive Equinox EV. Observation of real-world efficiency delivered "3.4 mi/kWh from 303 miles of driving at 70 mph". My bZ4X actually delivers slightly better, despite having a higher ground-clearance and AWD. But that isn't the point. GM has been striving to actually offer something affordable. Kudos to them. Interestingly, that stirs comments like this: "When are we going to see a similar test for the Subaru? That's the one I really want to see if it under or over-performs. I think it might over-perform, but the question is by how much." It's another sign of progress. Phew! In the past, it was just dismissal. Asking questions and wondering is a huge improvement. I contributed to the discussion with my own observations: 3.4 mi/kWh from my AWD bZ4X with 20" wheels in similar temperature (around 80°F) is what I have real-world observed at 70 mph. Efficiency climbs to 3.8 mi/kWh at 65 mph. It will hit 5.0 mi/kWh in suburb driving. I did a 102-mile round-trip a few weeks ago with a bike on back (platform hitch rack). It was almost entirely at 65 mph with A/C (temp was mid-80's). The result was 3.1 mi/kWh. Last weekend, we did a 47-mile round-trip drive with 2 bikes on back. Temperature was mid-70's and speed was a mix of suburb & highway. That ended up at 4.0 mi/kWh.
9-04-2024	More At Play. Although attention is still directed to range, this was progress: "Because the Chevy Equinox EV is the same price and goes 80 miles further on a charge." It's because the overall tone of the discussion changed. Rather than dismissal or personal attack, there was a hint of critical though stirring. It presented the opportunity for more exchanging: Engineering tradeoffs present an interesting choice. 288 volts = Chevy Equinox EV 355 volts = Subaru Solterra / Toyota bZ4X Higher pack voltage equates to faster DC charging from the same charger. For example, it is very common to find 200-amp chargers. From 288 volts, you get 57.6 kW. From 355 volts, you get 71 kW. In other words, even with basic priority consideration, there can be more to than just range at play.
9-02-2024	Bigger Picture. It's coming into focus: "Biggest problem is definitely the nominal voltage being sub-290V and that meaning to even hit the already miserable 150kW peak charge rate you have to use a 500A+ capable CCS charger, which means you will be taking up the limited number of 350kW chargers just so your car can briefly get 150kW. GM should be ashamed for doing this. The car should be capable of 150kW on any 150kW capable charger, meaning nominal voltage should be 400V." Discussions with substance, though a bit distracted by emotion. How long did that take? I jumped in with: Shame for trying to deliver something affordable? True, 288 volts from a 200-amp charger will only provide 57.6 kW. But that speed worked fine for Bolt in the past. Owners still got around just fine. Of course, Toyota was crucified for their 355-volt system. At 200 amps, that's 71 kW... which was declared far too slow. It puts those here in a difficult spot. Do they really want to shoot themselves in the foot by shaming GM? You know customers shopping for a replacement of their old Equinox ICE will take a close look at Equinox EV. Isn't that something we should be heavily promoting? Don't we want to reach a new audience, expanding the market to those who won't consider DCFC speed a vital priority? Again, we saw Bolt owners managing road trips in the past. Think about NEVI funding. You know those 150 kW stations will almost certainly top out at 200 amps. But the more usage they document, the greater likelihood budgets for phase-2 will be increased. After all, the point of a business sponsoring a site is to stir patronage. Too fast would be counter-productive, not giving owners any reason to check out the business while they wait.
9-01-2024	AMP Limitations. Finally, some substance. Of course, the exchange didn't start with it: "BZ4X takes 35-45 minutes." But since the origin of that comment came about from a topic discussing DC charging speed, it was on topic. It enabled me to ask: What's the significance of that comment? From a DCFC station with a 200-amp limit, bZ4X would be able to pull 71 kW. That seems slow until you realize it is a constraint with regard to pack voltage of 355. Since Blazer & Equinox are quite a bit lower, at just 288 volts, max rate from that same DCFC would only be 57.6 kW.
8-31-2024	Plug-In Vehicle Info-Sheet. 23 years ago, a group of the first Prius owners got together to create documents to share. These were online & printable materials to help stir interest and educate those curious about the technology. One of the really successful outcomes of that effort was an "Info-Sheet", a single sheet of paper conveying basic information. Copies of this could be made for distribution at events where the vehicle was on display. Decades later, I am attempting to do the same for us. Here is the first draft for feedback. It's just an image now, since that is what is easy to share in Facebook. Later, it will become a PDF file you can download. What do you think? Plug-In Vehicle Info-Sheet
8-30-2024	Arbitrary Values. Here's a long-winded example of nonsense repetition: "I don't see how time spent charging on a recreational "road trip" is irrelevant. No one wants to spend vacation time charging their car, particularly 3x a day. Although it could be a new Facebook category that no one is interested in, like posting pictures of restaurant food. "Here's where we charged the car the third time today." If a car had real range something in excess of 300 miles then the recharge time could be limited to one stop (assuming the ability to charge overnight)." It always comes down to the antagonist choosing an arbitrary value to argue. Our trips to visit my sister-in-law & kids was 750 miles. The other direction to family was 700 miles. Both are also arbitrary, but they are the only examples which fall beyond the range already supported. Even my trips up north are covered just fine. So, I asked: Since when is 300 miles relevant to ordinary need of most consumers? That is 4 to 5 hours of travel. Weekend warriors don't drive that far. Their routine trek to the summer cabin is only 2 to 3 hours... less than 200 miles. In other words, they charge to 100% before leaving home, then plug in when arriving at their destination. Arbitrary limits have been a common tactic for rhetoric. With infrastructure so lacking and so unreliable, it's simply not realistic trying to portray the current BEV market as being directly competitive with ICE yet. In fact, that is why industry interest for PHEV is becoming so strong. Focus on extremes is confirmation of status. Enthusiasts don't want to celebrate technology progress. Sending a clear message of future BEV potential is instead squandered by an effort to belittle traits they arbitrarily deem inadequate. What a waste. Fortunately, mainstream shoppers really don't care. Nonsense online doesn't reach them. They'll see DCFC stations being built and will figure out they can reach the their routine escape, having somewhere to stop to charge along the way just in case.
8-30-2024	Repeat Nonsense. It is fascinating to watch history repeat. Antagonists attack what that don't like, then attempt to change the topic when confronted for detail. With nothing to back their statements, it becomes undeniable they see what you present as a threat. They don't like their own status quo to be disrupted. I enjoy doing exactly that. I'm all to happy to point it out too: It has been very informative watching the effort to evade actual vehicle operation, never an acknowledgement of mi/kWh. Reality is, range sighted as "poor" was the result of driving at nothing but highest speeds on the highway; mi/kWh clearly confirms. Ordinary day to day driving provides much better results. This request for what to review will reveal that... which will derail the narrative dependent upon an extreme with the intent to mislead.