Scapegoat.  They like to have excuses readily available, rather than actually addressing the problem: "Toyota is still pushing hybrids and PHEVS. And are we to forget Toyota's lobbying efforts and the damage it has done to EV adoption?"  They don't want to admit their own efforts have fallen flat.  The easiest to see example is the BEV purist fighting anything with a gas-engine.  Why?  What purpose is served by such an abruption disruption to economic balance when the goal of lots of EV miles chance still be achieved with a PHEV?  After all, most of the undeveloped countries will struggle with electrification in general for decades to come.  Heck, here we still have many years of red-tape and hardware-order delays before our own infrastructure is properly addressed.  They don't want to face the setbacks that have emerged related to EV adoption.  I replied to that pointing out:  Getting caught wearing rose-colored glasses happens.  You should have known promises from other automakers weren't going to happen as quickly they expected. Don't use Toyota as a scapegoat for being overly optimistic about EV adoption.

History Reminder.  I wonder how many times I will end up posting this before it becomes obvious.  It's like this question I asked countless times in the past: "Who is the market for Volt?"  Those enthusiasts didn't understand they were failing to see the bigger picture.  They concentrated so much on what was currently being sold that they lost sight of what the technology was intended for.  It became all about winning the moment, not playing the long game... checkers, rather than chess... where progress seems to slip.  I'll keep reminding them, hoping some will recognize some of the seemingly illogical immediate moves will make more sense as time goes on:  Toyota followed the same approach as they did with Prius.  That pattern in history should now be easier to recognize.  Toyota listened to the noise from enthusiasts and filtered it down to information relevant to their core consumer.  Refinements were then implemented with continuous improvement, just like in the past.  They now have a design ready for mainstream, right on time... as the early-adopter phase (subsidies, infrastructure and consumer education) is wrapping up.

Crazy Fast.  I didn't even bother waiting for comments to be posted for the article with this title: "Why The 2026 Toyota bZ Doesn't Get Crazy Fast Charging Speeds".  Media outlets thrive on click-bait.  They publish stuff to draw attention to themselves and provoke participation.  Sometimes I humor them, seeing the opportunity as an invitation to stir the pot.  Since I'm playing offense now, why not?  This stage is that paradigm-shift we have been waiting ages for anyway, meaning there's new purpose and perspective.  Think about what someone who has never interacted with a BEV will expect.  It's like acceleration times.  A call of dropping the pedal all the way to the floor is pretty much never needed for the typical vehicle anymore.  Most highway merges are uneventful, using only a fraction of the power actually available.  How is charging any different?  Do you really rush stops to the extreme, only giving yourself the absolute minimum amount of time to use the restroom and purchase food?  That kind of defeats the purpose of taking a rest.  My wife and I both desire a few minutes to stretch & relax.  What benefit is there from being crazy fast?  If anything, that would mean feeling pressure to move your vehicle the moment it is at 80%.  Obligation like that is stressful.  Ugh.  Clearly, they many enthusiasts haven't thought the situation through.  They obviously don't understand diminishing returns.  This is even worse.  Oh well.  These keyboard warriors that the publications are trying to lure tend to have limited voices anyway.  Personally, I'm looking forward to creating videos of my own and in-person encounters.  Just like in the past, online reach is a surprisingly narrow scope when it comes to mainstream consumers.  This is what I posted, as the first comment:  Sounds like the same old automotive marketing we heard decades ago with acceleration & horsepower.  Neither of which translated to substantial real-world benefit, but they were treated as "more is better" when making a purchase decision.  Fortunately, not all consumers are that gullible.  Look at the tech industry for perspective, where speed & power are not high priorities anymore.  Know your audience.

Same League.  This caught my interest, someone actually sharing critical thought: "Tesla certainly manages much faster peak charging speeds than Toyota, but the overall curve results in similar charging times when looking at charging from 10-80%.  When I looked it up, I saw that the Model Y is quoted at 37 minutes to go from 10-80%, and that's barely better than the 30 minutes that Toyota is claiming for the bZ.  And in the end, I think that most drivers were care more about the overall length of their charging session than they will about the peak that is briefly hit during that charging session.  So looked at that way, while Toyota is not state of the art they are in the same league as Tesla."  I was delighted to see that.  We're clearly reaching a point where Tesla is no longer the only & obvious answer.  There are realistic choices emerging.  I followed up that sentiment with:  Nicely said.  Enthusiasts won't acknowledge diminishing returns.  When a technology becomes ubiquitous, they move on.  Toyota thrives at that point, delivering profitable & sustainable sales of what enthusiasts have then labeled as dull & boring.  In other words, ordinary consumers will be perfectly content with a BEV that delivers a reliable & consist DC fast-charging experience.  Taking a few minutes more than some other vehicles won't be anywhere near as big of a deal as enthusiasts make it to be.

Byproducts, called out.  I could sense growing frustration when I pointed out his most recent post contradicted his own original claim.  He wasn't listening, so I gave up.  Someone else then jumped into the discussion thread.  Also annoyed by those replies and called him out concluding: "...you are simply trying to distract from your original comment.  You are basically doing a very long version of but hey look over here, to avoid the fact you made a stupid comment."  I was amused & vindicated.  That type of support doesn't happen often.  Most confused posters just get ignored.  This one was defending oil by making up reasons for drilling more.  I have always been amazed how the United States subsidizing oil could go on for so long.  Seeing how much more expensive diesel was in Europe first clued me in that something was amiss.  Clearly, not everyone pays close enough attention to notice differences like that... or they are just too lazy to research.  Whatever the case, this argument had a happy ending.

Byproducts, process.  Another quick reply came in the form of telling me I had it backward: "To make products like plastic, gasoline is made by default as it has a lower boiling temp and will be separated first. It is not the other way around and we made gasoline, and ended up with plastic out of the process."  He was misunderstanding process to be purpose.  We don't drill oil for the sake of making plastics.  That is some seriously greenwashed consumer to think plastic was the goal.  It was diesel, which contradicted his claim.  Gas was simply the other resulting fuel that held less energy, which is why it became the cheap alternative for cars in the United States.  Plastics can about afterward, in the following decades.  Just because source materials from it are extracted out of the refining process first didn't make them the reason for drilling oil.  Ugh.

Byproducts, heavy crude.  Within just a few minutes, I got a reply to my question pointing out that diesel & gas were byproducts because they needed to find a use for what was left after refining heavy crude.  What the heck?  Heavy crude is the less desirable form of oil.  It's difficult to transport and much more expensive to refine because it has so much more sulfur to remove.  That's why sweet crude is preferred... and why we have so many challenges with domestic oil.  Foreign sources tend to be a lot cleaner.  Anywho, before I could reply to that mess he completely changed it to: "Plastics, grease, various grades of oil, rubber.  Do you not realize how many products are made with oil."  That was it.  The long-winded commentary of heavy crude was gone.  So, I responded with:  Those are the byproducts.  In fact, that's why so many are now sourced from plants instead.

Byproducts, confused.  It started simple enough.  There was a discussion about subsidies for gas.  Someone made a comment that there are none.  I pointed out the fund/savings are provided before the refining process.  Then matters got confused: "Gasoline and diesel are byproducts.  So if it is received before the refining process it is not going towards gasoline and diesel."  What a bizarre claim.  Petroleum (oil) got a boom in popularity from being an alternative fuel, holding far more energy than wood and being a more practical choice than coal.  That became the big draw for trains and obviously the fuel for planes.  And of course, usefulness of the resulting diesel & gas for vehicles was a rather undeniable advantage of electricity a century ago.  It simply made no sense claiming they were byproducts.  What the heck was the main product then?

In other words, as BEV owners we will be forced to pay for 3 times the tax for fuel as we actually will use.

In short, things are finally getting real.  What early-adopters claim was important, which writers still echo, isn't necessarily what ordinary consumers will actually seek.  It's up to use to help make sure they understand the technology.

Now, we see a collection of improvements... kinks worked out... planned for the 2026 model of bZ.  Prerequisites revealed from the early years will be satisfied.  Those shopping the showroom floor couldn't care less what happened prior to that.  The idea of considering something from the early years, like Tesla, have faded away.

Status Quo, part 2.  This is the part I didn't comment on, what followed the greenwashing remark: "Toyota is hostile to electrification and will soon go the way of the dodos..."  That's what makes intent to slander overwhelmingly clear.  How is the slow rollout of a wide variety of plug-in vehicles hostile?  It's not.  The actual problem is enthusiasts don't like the approach or the choices.  Because there is nothing for them, it's considered a counter effort.  Toyota is anti-EV because they are unwilling follow the same path as everyone else.  Being different is bad, according to them.  That's why our society here in the United States is struggling.  That blind belief of there being only one way and that nothing else is a viable can succeed is how the zero-sum outlook has become our own doom, not Toyota's.  We treat that default presumption as gospel.  It's is this way or no way.  Ugh.  That's why it is pointless to reply on the emotion parts of posts.  Things like "100% hybrid" are cold hard facts that cannot be disputed.

In other words, the greenwashing is really efforts from those frustrated by success Toyota to distract.  They see how Toyota has truly overcome the status quo while others still struggle.

Long Game.  The comment posted was so bad, I don't want to quote any of it.  You reading that wouldn't achieve anything other than give an antagonist more platform anyway.  Of course, I took the bait in the forum.  So, I there's a bit of enablement on my part.  But I sometimes see their attempt to undermine as an invitation.  They fired the first shot.  He's my shooting back:  That's a lot of assuming.  There's no possible way you could know how much the new batteries produced in the new factory will actually cost, nor do you know what the demand will be for plug-in vehicles yet.  For that matter, what makes you think Toyota won't push availability to fulfill ACC-II requirements?  People all along have been claiming "compliance" even though there was nothing to actually comply with yet.  For 2026 models, there actually is.  Think about the chaos Telsa fallout and this administration is causing.  Toyota is extremely well positioned to offer choice.  With the upgraded bZ and the upcoming CH-R and Woodland choices of BEV, there will be a fresh audience looking at Toyota.  Shoppers will inevitably take PHEV into consideration.  This isn't rocket science.  It's really just an exercise in patience.  Toyota has been playing the long game.