John's Stuff - Personal Log 1296

October 8, 2024 - October 18, 2024

Last Updated: Mon. 11/04/2024

10-18-2024
Video: Metric Units (autumn commute). In the United States, we use measures unlike much of the rest of the world. We use miles, mph, mi/kWh and °F instead of km, km/h, kWh/100km and °C. That difference makes conveying results quite difficult. Being able to switch to display in those metric units instead is great. Also, efficiency (autonomy) here is the reverse, where we regard higher as better. I can display lower as better too. This video provides a nice capture of my commute to work on a nice autumn day. It's my commute to work a few days ago, quite ordinary. You get the dashboard along with ODB-II data presented at 10X to make the drive somewhat entertaining. I hope you enjoy this presentation of those familiar gauges with the alternate detail... Toyota bZ4X - Metric Units (autumn commute)

10-17-2024
Lexus Owners. They tend to be rather quiet. On the group today, someone was feeling a little down from hearing so little other than rhetoric. Not knowing what kind response others would provide, I jumped in with some perspective that was hopefully both encouraging & enlightening: Elements of what makes Lexus RZ special... like it being the first to have an inverter using silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors for better efficiency... is something that could lost if the group does not have some type of oversight. It's easy for rhetoric to become a distraction. Kudos for the effort to stay focused.

10-16-2024
Bad Reviews. I wonder how many more posts like this will surface, now that some time has passed and rhetoric is fading: "The BZ4X gets consistently bad reviews. There was one on the lot when I bought my Prime..." Here's what I provided for some perspective: I found some of those "bad" reviews back then very informative. They revealed just how little some reviewers actually knew about EVs. The most obvious was how "efficiency" was equated to "range". Do some searches. Notice the absence of "mi/kWh" data, despite claims of poor efficiency. Reviewers are not journalists. They often base their claims on anecdotal observation, rather than detailed research. They get paid to quickly turn over content for an article which is hoped to draw readers. You want the real story, ask owners.

10-15-2024
Death Forecasts. How many of these have we heard over the years: "I've heard the forecasted death of Toyota for quite a while on Tesla-inspired channels, and I think they deserve to collapse, given how much they've delayed the transition to EV's. But I'm afraid that we in the US have given them a life line for many years to come." Reality is an interesting twist, often providing a counter-intuitive outcome. I was all too happy to point that out too: You are wrong. (wink) There will only be a brief slowdown. GM is already starting to fill the Tesla gap. What it really boils down to is BEV not being affordable yet and lagging infrastructure. Both of which will be resolved in a few years. Toyota is using this lull in the meantime to capitalize on hybrids while at the same time refine their plug-in tech. It's not rocket science to move quickly; however, rhetoric will tell you slow equates to failure. Economics of long-term success teaches us that's not actually the case.

10-15-2024
Video: Final Warm Commute (part 2). This is a continuation of my commute to work, my return home at the end of the day. With summer coming pretty much over, this warm temperature was my final opportunity to do a detailed video & app capture. It will serve as an interesting compare when winter arrives. Results are quite different in below freezing conditions... Toyota bZ4X - Final Warm Commute (part 2)

10-15-2024
Just Pretend. How many studies focusing entirely on carbon emissions show that over the lifetime of the EV it will end up polluting less? That's without even taking into account smog-related emissions or improved battery chemistries. Yet, we still get nonsense like this: "Electric vehicle owners should ONLY be allowed to charge their cars using solar and wind power, otherwise it's just pretend." Those making such claims are fooling themselves. They turn a blind-eye to how we get electricity in the first place. But since most will never learn, because they clearly don't take the time or even so any interest finding out more when confronted, I keep replies to them short. They are the ones pretending. Ugh. This is how I replied to today's claim: Electricity generation using fossil fuel is normally quite wasteful. In fact, that's a contributing factor to the growth of grid storage. Anyone who charges their EV using off-peak times is taking advantage of waste usage opportunity.

10-13-2024
Second Best. That is the market position GM is now enjoying with regard to BEV sales in the United States. Rollout of Equinox EV has gone well. I agree. Of course, it brings up the same concern as in the past... too little, too slowly. I won't mention that history yet, especially when we are starting to see posts like this: "Queue the mentally ill haters and paid oil company trolls. Grabbing my popcorn." In other words, we're back to the blindness. Years ago, it was a denial of being a business failure from those who saw Volt as an engineering triumph. Ugh. I was all to happy to provide a reminder: Don't forget the lesson learned from Volt. It was all about audience. Conquests sales didn't achieve anything. Dealers maintained a status quo. If GM can get their own loyal customers, the showroom shoppers, then we as advocates can celebrate. But instead if we see current Equinox owners replaced their aged model with a new gas model rather than the EV, there's good reason for concern.

10-11-2024
Normal Units. I appreciated this feedback from my newest video: "And what about use normal units? :) Kwh/km. I have AWD and average consumption is 17-19 kwh/100km. Highway is 23 kWh/100km at 130km per hour.." That was a very good request. Here is how I replied: Primary audience for the videos & photos I share are owners in the United States, where consumption is measured in reverse... higher values are better. That's counter-intuitive for much of the rest of the world, but it is what we're stuck with. That is our normal. It would be great to be able to switch from miles/kWh to kWh/100km. Fortunately, our sales information (the window sticker) does list kWh/100mi. So, that is at least a recognition of a better way to convey efficiency.

10-11-2024
Who? That was my first thought upon seeing the reveal of Tesla's upcoming RoboTaxi. This was another's: "All show, no go! Nothing to see here. Just vaporware" It was absurd. The business-case alone was a head-scratcher. Who will want ownership of a fleet of 2-passenger taxis? Will larger versions even be cost effective? What happens after they start to get old? We have been waiting years for this? It was especially disappointing with knowledge of the reveal being delayed a few months. Cybertruck failing to be a runaway hit has already made Tesla's difficult market position even more of a mess. Now this. Ugh. I asked: At least with GM, their problem of "over promise, under deliver" had an element of getting lucky and actually pulling it off. That was mostly because their approach was an aggressive schedule for a product people were already asking for. Who wanted this from Tesla?

10-11-2024
Business Cycle. It's rather fascinating to see a societal cycle play out as a business cycle. It's quite predictable. Most never notice it though. Taking decades to progress, that's easy to understand. Unfortunately, when it happens many will argue it is not. They assume what they have experienced for years is the way things should be and always will. Coming to the realization that what's happening is actually a pattern being followed is a lot to accept... hence the various stages of denial these log entries are loaded with. Anywho, this is what I had to say about the topic today, upon someone actually applying some critical thought to the situation: That's the natural business cycle. Over time the high-profit offerings will get so big, the really small will sneak in pretty much unnoticed at first. They will later get dismissed as unimportant. Eventually, the market will become so saturated with used big models as new inventory gets discounted from slowing sales. At some point, panic sets in due to over supply. Scramble to somehow compete with small, low profit-margin choices begins. It's quite predictable. Eventually, the market will settle with normal size vehicles. The cycle will then start its repeat.

10-10-2024 No Profit. We're seeing the repeat, again: "The elephant in the room is profits. GM needs to make a profit in order to stay in business." Supposedly, GM will be cutting cost to achieve a savings of roughly $6,000 with a new approach to batteries. This came upon the new of "Ultium" branding being dropped. Sound familiar. Major reduction efforts came about with Volt too. That failed, but hope from hype helped GM survive their turmoil of the time. Watching the same thing payout years later is maddening. Why doesn't anyone else recognize this? At least the reason for change is recognized. Profit is not being made. I jumped into the mess with:

History provides insight. GM has always made bold claims, but in the end struggled with profit. It is how their "over promise, under deliver" reputation came about. We saw this with Two-Mode, then Voltec, then Bolt. Regardless of how much praise the engineering would get, it was always the loss of money which brought about the demise of those offerings.

Each sounded too good to be true from the start. Ultium followed that pattern. There was no substance to support superiority claims from using a pouch approach for packaging. Yet, somehow it garnered much attention as somehow already representing market leadership. Absence of any path to profit wasn't a concern. Huh?

With battery chemistry advancing in so many directions so quickly, locking into something lacking flexibility seemed problematic in terms of optimization... a necessity for profitability. After all, we had already seen Tesla struggle with 4680 in the same regard. So what each vehicle requires some customization? Economies of scale can still be achieved by offering fewer models choices.
In short, it's the ability to target a market... not marketing a brand.

10-10-2024
Faster Is Better. Ugh. Sometimes, the entire exchange needs to be quoted to provide proper context. This was a reply to the "obsolete" post I had contributed to yesterday: "True, but it's all relative. Back in 50kW days people would have told you that was all that made economic sense and 350kW was illogical too. For adoption to flourish we need charge times to come down, and the only way to do that is with more power. 200-300kWh truck packs need to be able to do 10-80 in the same 15 minutes a sedan does if we want ICE parity and that’s always been the goal. That's megawatt charging." It's not relative, there are tradeoffs. In this case, spending a lot more only a few could benefit from is illogical. The goal is to provide support for the masses. That's why diesel was only available at some stations. Most of the time, only gas is available since that's what most people needed. I replied with: Diminishing returns is real. Higher tier service (required when more amps is demanded) is expensive. Heavier gauge wire with aggressive cooling is expensive too. If people want faster, they will have to pay a premium for using it. Most won't have 200-300 kWh truck packs. Most won't want to pay more per kWh. It is how charging locations will evolve. Most will feature standard 350 kW service. Notice how NEVI is only targeting 150 kW for location establishment? Faster is not a good investment for something that won't return much for the masses. Megawatt charging is for commercial business. This discussion is how technology advances will impact ordinary consumers.

10-10-2024
Arbitrary Reasoning. It's a common problem. Someone will base their assessment on what they demand important, than argue as if their perspective has been validated as fact. I call those attempts out. Yesterday, it was asking why more than 250 miles is necessary. It was stated as if that vital minimum was widely agreed upon for obvious reasons. This is what I got as answer today: "For people who live in apartments that don't have chargers yet and want to commute all week and only charge on the weekends. The average driving for an American male is 16,000 miles per year. That is 44 miles per day on average. 5 days is 220 miles. The extra accounts for degradation." Not only was that arbitrary, it could also be considered offensive. I responded with some data that wasn't so cherry-picked. Hope is that he'll find my reply constructive... but likely not realistic. Certain individuals online are not known for being constructive. Know you audience. I posted.: The statistical average is 41 miles. That is why Toyota's target of 42 miles for RAV4 Prime and VW's target of 209 miles for ID.4 have been recognized as solid business objectives. Efforts of enthusiasts to raise the bar are recognized as a want, not a need.

10-09-2024
Obsolete When? I found this question posed on our local EV owners group intriguing: "Thought of the day, how long before my model 3 is obsolete like a two year old computer and we are sitting back saying I remember back in the day when our cars only charged at 250kw and we would sit for a hour charging." I provided this answer for some perspective, asking: Obsolete is a subjective assessment. If the vehicle still carries you from point A to point B and you can continue to get fuel along the way, what difference does it make? With regard to charging, there are practical limitations to how quickly electricity can be delivered. 350 kW (500 amp) dispensers will likely become the standard. After all, there is a reality of diminishing return. Faster kW speed only reduces time by a few minutes.

10-08-2024
Disinformation Spread. There are some new trolls emerging: "You're just being an apologist for PHEVs." Starting with an insult like that is a dead giveaway they are not being constructive. That post ended up following with: "50 miles of range means that you're going to cycle that battery very often, so the battery will not last." Stuff exactly like that is why I filmed as much as I possibly could, documenting the past. Sure glad I did that too. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop the intentional harmful posting. But at least we can quickly debunk attempts. This is what I had to say to today's attempt: The spread of disinformation about cycling is a desperate act of those fearing the influence of PHEV, despite the reality of how much they have proven to encourage BEV purchases. Truth is, the battery isn't cycled each time EV range is depleted. For a PHEV like Prius, usage for EV is a SOC from 84% to 14%. Avoiding a full charge and preventing deep discharge greatly promotes longevity. The battery-pack simply never sees the stress those against PHEV claim. Data from real-world usage over the past 12 years has overwhelmingly confirmed that.

10-08-2024 Tipping Point. It's treated as a moving target and welcomes exaggeration. That's quite annoying. Here's an example: "Proponents of PHEVs tend to assume that every trip is either 20 miles or 2000 miles, while totally ignoring the intermediate-range trips (100-200 miles), which are much more common than the really big trips." I obviously had much to say about that. So, I did:

Unfortunately, proponents of BEVs turned hypocritical. They focused heavily on intermediate-range trips for many, many years. But as they saw the PHEV threat grow, their messaging of "200 miles" being the fulfillment of ICE replacement tipping-point changed to "300 miles".

I know this well starting with a PHEV delivering a 12-mile range, upgrading to one with a 25-mile range, then watching the bar get raised above 40 miles as I planned my BEV purchase. Those 25 miles already fulfilled my daily commute, since I could recharge at work. That next-gen range increase to +40 meant the round-trip could be achieved without recharging. Entirely electric commutes are quite realistic.

Now we see the weekend-warrior travel getting attention, the intermediate-range trips. Even with my supposed sub-par AWD bZ4X delivering "only 225 miles" handles those drives just fine. There are already enough DC fast-charge locations to make that journey easy. No need to even bother with level-2 chargers anymore.

It puts into perspective the uncertainty BEV proponents now face about how to promote. What is their objective... significantly reducing gas consumption for a large population without having to deal with infrastructure shortcomings or to face the reality of BEV with shorter range? They know all too well that smaller battery-packs equate to slower DC charging and less overall power. It's a simple understanding of having fewer volts available.
As for the representation of PHEV proponents, the better perspective is looking at the purchase decision. Dealers are far more likely to direct attention of showroom-shoppers to a plug-in hybrid than they are an electric-only. No home upgrade necessary. A standard household 120-volt outlet will entirely replenish EV range overnight. That's a difficult reality for BEV proponents to accept.

10-18-2024	Video: Metric Units (autumn commute). In the United States, we use measures unlike much of the rest of the world. We use miles, mph, mi/kWh and °F instead of km, km/h, kWh/100km and °C. That difference makes conveying results quite difficult. Being able to switch to display in those metric units instead is great. Also, efficiency (autonomy) here is the reverse, where we regard higher as better. I can display lower as better too. This video provides a nice capture of my commute to work on a nice autumn day. It's my commute to work a few days ago, quite ordinary. You get the dashboard along with ODB-II data presented at 10X to make the drive somewhat entertaining. I hope you enjoy this presentation of those familiar gauges with the alternate detail... Toyota bZ4X - Metric Units (autumn commute)
10-17-2024	Lexus Owners. They tend to be rather quiet. On the group today, someone was feeling a little down from hearing so little other than rhetoric. Not knowing what kind response others would provide, I jumped in with some perspective that was hopefully both encouraging & enlightening: Elements of what makes Lexus RZ special... like it being the first to have an inverter using silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors for better efficiency... is something that could lost if the group does not have some type of oversight. It's easy for rhetoric to become a distraction. Kudos for the effort to stay focused.
10-16-2024	Bad Reviews. I wonder how many more posts like this will surface, now that some time has passed and rhetoric is fading: "The BZ4X gets consistently bad reviews. There was one on the lot when I bought my Prime..." Here's what I provided for some perspective: I found some of those "bad" reviews back then very informative. They revealed just how little some reviewers actually knew about EVs. The most obvious was how "efficiency" was equated to "range". Do some searches. Notice the absence of "mi/kWh" data, despite claims of poor efficiency. Reviewers are not journalists. They often base their claims on anecdotal observation, rather than detailed research. They get paid to quickly turn over content for an article which is hoped to draw readers. You want the real story, ask owners.
10-15-2024	Death Forecasts. How many of these have we heard over the years: "I've heard the forecasted death of Toyota for quite a while on Tesla-inspired channels, and I think they deserve to collapse, given how much they've delayed the transition to EV's. But I'm afraid that we in the US have given them a life line for many years to come." Reality is an interesting twist, often providing a counter-intuitive outcome. I was all too happy to point that out too: You are wrong. (wink) There will only be a brief slowdown. GM is already starting to fill the Tesla gap. What it really boils down to is BEV not being affordable yet and lagging infrastructure. Both of which will be resolved in a few years. Toyota is using this lull in the meantime to capitalize on hybrids while at the same time refine their plug-in tech. It's not rocket science to move quickly; however, rhetoric will tell you slow equates to failure. Economics of long-term success teaches us that's not actually the case.
10-15-2024	Video: Final Warm Commute (part 2). This is a continuation of my commute to work, my return home at the end of the day. With summer coming pretty much over, this warm temperature was my final opportunity to do a detailed video & app capture. It will serve as an interesting compare when winter arrives. Results are quite different in below freezing conditions... Toyota bZ4X - Final Warm Commute (part 2)
10-15-2024	Just Pretend. How many studies focusing entirely on carbon emissions show that over the lifetime of the EV it will end up polluting less? That's without even taking into account smog-related emissions or improved battery chemistries. Yet, we still get nonsense like this: "Electric vehicle owners should ONLY be allowed to charge their cars using solar and wind power, otherwise it's just pretend." Those making such claims are fooling themselves. They turn a blind-eye to how we get electricity in the first place. But since most will never learn, because they clearly don't take the time or even so any interest finding out more when confronted, I keep replies to them short. They are the ones pretending. Ugh. This is how I replied to today's claim: Electricity generation using fossil fuel is normally quite wasteful. In fact, that's a contributing factor to the growth of grid storage. Anyone who charges their EV using off-peak times is taking advantage of waste usage opportunity.
10-13-2024	Second Best. That is the market position GM is now enjoying with regard to BEV sales in the United States. Rollout of Equinox EV has gone well. I agree. Of course, it brings up the same concern as in the past... too little, too slowly. I won't mention that history yet, especially when we are starting to see posts like this: "Queue the mentally ill haters and paid oil company trolls. Grabbing my popcorn." In other words, we're back to the blindness. Years ago, it was a denial of being a business failure from those who saw Volt as an engineering triumph. Ugh. I was all to happy to provide a reminder: Don't forget the lesson learned from Volt. It was all about audience. Conquests sales didn't achieve anything. Dealers maintained a status quo. If GM can get their own loyal customers, the showroom shoppers, then we as advocates can celebrate. But instead if we see current Equinox owners replaced their aged model with a new gas model rather than the EV, there's good reason for concern.
10-11-2024	Normal Units. I appreciated this feedback from my newest video: "And what about use normal units? :) Kwh/km. I have AWD and average consumption is 17-19 kwh/100km. Highway is 23 kWh/100km at 130km per hour.." That was a very good request. Here is how I replied: Primary audience for the videos & photos I share are owners in the United States, where consumption is measured in reverse... higher values are better. That's counter-intuitive for much of the rest of the world, but it is what we're stuck with. That is our normal. It would be great to be able to switch from miles/kWh to kWh/100km. Fortunately, our sales information (the window sticker) does list kWh/100mi. So, that is at least a recognition of a better way to convey efficiency.
10-11-2024	Who? That was my first thought upon seeing the reveal of Tesla's upcoming RoboTaxi. This was another's: "All show, no go! Nothing to see here. Just vaporware" It was absurd. The business-case alone was a head-scratcher. Who will want ownership of a fleet of 2-passenger taxis? Will larger versions even be cost effective? What happens after they start to get old? We have been waiting years for this? It was especially disappointing with knowledge of the reveal being delayed a few months. Cybertruck failing to be a runaway hit has already made Tesla's difficult market position even more of a mess. Now this. Ugh. I asked: At least with GM, their problem of "over promise, under deliver" had an element of getting lucky and actually pulling it off. That was mostly because their approach was an aggressive schedule for a product people were already asking for. Who wanted this from Tesla?
10-11-2024	Business Cycle. It's rather fascinating to see a societal cycle play out as a business cycle. It's quite predictable. Most never notice it though. Taking decades to progress, that's easy to understand. Unfortunately, when it happens many will argue it is not. They assume what they have experienced for years is the way things should be and always will. Coming to the realization that what's happening is actually a pattern being followed is a lot to accept... hence the various stages of denial these log entries are loaded with. Anywho, this is what I had to say about the topic today, upon someone actually applying some critical thought to the situation: That's the natural business cycle. Over time the high-profit offerings will get so big, the really small will sneak in pretty much unnoticed at first. They will later get dismissed as unimportant. Eventually, the market will become so saturated with used big models as new inventory gets discounted from slowing sales. At some point, panic sets in due to over supply. Scramble to somehow compete with small, low profit-margin choices begins. It's quite predictable. Eventually, the market will settle with normal size vehicles. The cycle will then start its repeat.
10-10-2024	No Profit. We're seeing the repeat, again: "The elephant in the room is profits. GM needs to make a profit in order to stay in business." Supposedly, GM will be cutting cost to achieve a savings of roughly $6,000 with a new approach to batteries. This came upon the new of "Ultium" branding being dropped. Sound familiar. Major reduction efforts came about with Volt too. That failed, but hope from hype helped GM survive their turmoil of the time. Watching the same thing payout years later is maddening. Why doesn't anyone else recognize this? At least the reason for change is recognized. Profit is not being made. I jumped into the mess with: History provides insight. GM has always made bold claims, but in the end struggled with profit. It is how their "over promise, under deliver" reputation came about. We saw this with Two-Mode, then Voltec, then Bolt. Regardless of how much praise the engineering would get, it was always the loss of money which brought about the demise of those offerings. Each sounded too good to be true from the start. Ultium followed that pattern. There was no substance to support superiority claims from using a pouch approach for packaging. Yet, somehow it garnered much attention as somehow already representing market leadership. Absence of any path to profit wasn't a concern. Huh? With battery chemistry advancing in so many directions so quickly, locking into something lacking flexibility seemed problematic in terms of optimization... a necessity for profitability. After all, we had already seen Tesla struggle with 4680 in the same regard. So what each vehicle requires some customization? Economies of scale can still be achieved by offering fewer models choices. In short, it's the ability to target a market... not marketing a brand.
10-10-2024	Faster Is Better. Ugh. Sometimes, the entire exchange needs to be quoted to provide proper context. This was a reply to the "obsolete" post I had contributed to yesterday: "True, but it's all relative. Back in 50kW days people would have told you that was all that made economic sense and 350kW was illogical too. For adoption to flourish we need charge times to come down, and the only way to do that is with more power. 200-300kWh truck packs need to be able to do 10-80 in the same 15 minutes a sedan does if we want ICE parity and that’s always been the goal. That's megawatt charging." It's not relative, there are tradeoffs. In this case, spending a lot more only a few could benefit from is illogical. The goal is to provide support for the masses. That's why diesel was only available at some stations. Most of the time, only gas is available since that's what most people needed. I replied with: Diminishing returns is real. Higher tier service (required when more amps is demanded) is expensive. Heavier gauge wire with aggressive cooling is expensive too. If people want faster, they will have to pay a premium for using it. Most won't have 200-300 kWh truck packs. Most won't want to pay more per kWh. It is how charging locations will evolve. Most will feature standard 350 kW service. Notice how NEVI is only targeting 150 kW for location establishment? Faster is not a good investment for something that won't return much for the masses. Megawatt charging is for commercial business. This discussion is how technology advances will impact ordinary consumers.
10-10-2024	Arbitrary Reasoning. It's a common problem. Someone will base their assessment on what they demand important, than argue as if their perspective has been validated as fact. I call those attempts out. Yesterday, it was asking why more than 250 miles is necessary. It was stated as if that vital minimum was widely agreed upon for obvious reasons. This is what I got as answer today: "For people who live in apartments that don't have chargers yet and want to commute all week and only charge on the weekends. The average driving for an American male is 16,000 miles per year. That is 44 miles per day on average. 5 days is 220 miles. The extra accounts for degradation." Not only was that arbitrary, it could also be considered offensive. I responded with some data that wasn't so cherry-picked. Hope is that he'll find my reply constructive... but likely not realistic. Certain individuals online are not known for being constructive. Know you audience. I posted.: The statistical average is 41 miles. That is why Toyota's target of 42 miles for RAV4 Prime and VW's target of 209 miles for ID.4 have been recognized as solid business objectives. Efforts of enthusiasts to raise the bar are recognized as a want, not a need.
10-09-2024	Obsolete When? I found this question posed on our local EV owners group intriguing: "Thought of the day, how long before my model 3 is obsolete like a two year old computer and we are sitting back saying I remember back in the day when our cars only charged at 250kw and we would sit for a hour charging." I provided this answer for some perspective, asking: Obsolete is a subjective assessment. If the vehicle still carries you from point A to point B and you can continue to get fuel along the way, what difference does it make? With regard to charging, there are practical limitations to how quickly electricity can be delivered. 350 kW (500 amp) dispensers will likely become the standard. After all, there is a reality of diminishing return. Faster kW speed only reduces time by a few minutes.
10-08-2024	Disinformation Spread. There are some new trolls emerging: "You're just being an apologist for PHEVs." Starting with an insult like that is a dead giveaway they are not being constructive. That post ended up following with: "50 miles of range means that you're going to cycle that battery very often, so the battery will not last." Stuff exactly like that is why I filmed as much as I possibly could, documenting the past. Sure glad I did that too. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop the intentional harmful posting. But at least we can quickly debunk attempts. This is what I had to say to today's attempt: The spread of disinformation about cycling is a desperate act of those fearing the influence of PHEV, despite the reality of how much they have proven to encourage BEV purchases. Truth is, the battery isn't cycled each time EV range is depleted. For a PHEV like Prius, usage for EV is a SOC from 84% to 14%. Avoiding a full charge and preventing deep discharge greatly promotes longevity. The battery-pack simply never sees the stress those against PHEV claim. Data from real-world usage over the past 12 years has overwhelmingly confirmed that.
10-08-2024	Tipping Point. It's treated as a moving target and welcomes exaggeration. That's quite annoying. Here's an example: "Proponents of PHEVs tend to assume that every trip is either 20 miles or 2000 miles, while totally ignoring the intermediate-range trips (100-200 miles), which are much more common than the really big trips." I obviously had much to say about that. So, I did: Unfortunately, proponents of BEVs turned hypocritical. They focused heavily on intermediate-range trips for many, many years. But as they saw the PHEV threat grow, their messaging of "200 miles" being the fulfillment of ICE replacement tipping-point changed to "300 miles". I know this well starting with a PHEV delivering a 12-mile range, upgrading to one with a 25-mile range, then watching the bar get raised above 40 miles as I planned my BEV purchase. Those 25 miles already fulfilled my daily commute, since I could recharge at work. That next-gen range increase to +40 meant the round-trip could be achieved without recharging. Entirely electric commutes are quite realistic. Now we see the weekend-warrior travel getting attention, the intermediate-range trips. Even with my supposed sub-par AWD bZ4X delivering "only 225 miles" handles those drives just fine. There are already enough DC fast-charge locations to make that journey easy. No need to even bother with level-2 chargers anymore. It puts into perspective the uncertainty BEV proponents now face about how to promote. What is their objective... significantly reducing gas consumption for a large population without having to deal with infrastructure shortcomings or to face the reality of BEV with shorter range? They know all too well that smaller battery-packs equate to slower DC charging and less overall power. It's a simple understanding of having fewer volts available. As for the representation of PHEV proponents, the better perspective is looking at the purchase decision. Dealers are far more likely to direct attention of showroom-shoppers to a plug-in hybrid than they are an electric-only. No home upgrade necessary. A standard household 120-volt outlet will entirely replenish EV range overnight. That's a difficult reality for BEV proponents to accept.