Mass-Appeal Feedback, fear.  Realization of losing the war eventually happens.  Keyboard warriors spend so much time & effort trying to win battles, they don't notice the real problem until it's too late.  Look at the disaster Tesla has become.  An amazing transformation of the industry was to come from Cybertruck.  So many innovations hoped to work perfectly upon day 1.  Enthusiasts bet the farm on what appeared exciting.  This is why the slow & tedious steps Toyota takes are always looked down upon.  That approach is dull & boring.  Enthusiasts don't want continuous improvement; they want a big boom instead.  Cybertruck failed to deliver on several fronts and the refresh of Model Y went nowhere, no progress.  It's been the opposite.  Losses have been colossal.  Meanwhile, Toyota has never stopped making progress.  That's what makes this message to the enthusiasts, turned antagonists, so bittersweet:  2026 models scare you.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, want & need.  It always comes down to the basics: "Don't be stupid, why would "mainstream" buyers want a worse EV with worse range and slower charging than what "enthusiasts" want.  That's just dumb."  Seeing such familiar viewpoints is quite reassuring.  I said this before and will likely say it again:  It's like you're following a script, quite literally repeating history down to using the same words again.  Each time a chapter repeated (several times over the past 25 years) it has been the same thing... enthusiasts not recognizing the difference between want & need.  Dead giveaway you are doing that is use of vague measures, like "worse" and "slower".  That's a clear refusal to acknowledge diminishing returns.

Static Market.  I found this stimulating: "EVs have not gained market share in the US since 2023.  Point fingers if you like, but more than 93% of Americans don't want them, and those that do can choose from dozens offered by nearly every automaker."  It wasn't due to the obvious misrepresentation of offerings.  It was the fact that a conclusion was being drawn already.  Sound familiar?  The same thing was done for hybrids.  Antagonists don't want to acknowledge there's any possibility of improvement.  They measure the situation based on limitations of the moment.  Again, it is a willing the battle rather than the war mentality.  There's no such of patience, especially when dealing with the inevitable.  Fossil fuel won't last forever.  In fact, we are already seeing instability in the oil market.  That's one of the undeniable signs of having reached peak a number of years ago.  Anywho, I didn't realize posting this in response to that nonsense would stir so much positive feedback:  Portraying the market as static, giving an impression EV technology isn't continuously improving, is dead giveaway of a failing argument.  Vehicles, charging and varieties are rapidly advancing.   What wasn't appealing in the past can become quite desirable after just a few years later.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, audience.  There are some who never give up.  This individual is clueless for a clear reason; he doesn't understand who the technology is for.  With an objective to win online arguments, he'll never learn either... hence this provoke: "Sad.  So, still nothing that explains your argument that consumers don't care about the EXACT things that EV consumers care about."  I especially like that emphasis on needing to be precise.  He's completely missing the point.  That made this response easy:  This entire discussion has been about getting feedback for mass-market appeal, not consumers in the EV market.  The history repeat is not understanding that difference.  Toyota's approach, using early sales to learn what is truly a need for the masses, worked extremely well with Prius.  It's quite clear it will for bZ too... which is why you absolutely refuse to acknowledge updates coming for their 2026 models.  You know that time studying audience was time well spent.  Know your audience.

Gradual Transition.  Here's another very optimistic prediction: "Countries that produce a lot of oil will stick with ICE as long as possible, other countries will move to BEVs. US auto manufacturing will shrink to US market only, and will gradually erode until BEVs will get so much better than ICE that even US market will go BEV."  Such a look of the future is overly simplistic, a common problem for enthusiasts.  They don't see the bigger picture, nor do they understand all the factors at play.  Ironically, this is the complete opposite of the "all in" attitude from just a few years ago.  Change brings about instability.  That's why so many fight to retain status quo.  Upset of balance is not welcome.  Most people know they are not prepared, hence a hope for gradual.  That isn't reality.  I stated that by saying:  It won't be gradual.  ICE prices will become even more of a problem.  That will open up the market for cheap BEV.  Using small sodium-ion packs, they will become a compelling draw, especially as LFP and LMR choices stir ordinary BEV competition.  There will be solid-state coming from a variety of sources and Toyota's bi-polar packaging too.  It will be an erosion of the ICE market on multiple fronts.

BEV Outlook.  Back when the hype of transition from gas to electricity used Toyota as a scapegoat, using the "behind" narrative as a portrayal of market status, outlook was very optimistic.  It simply made no sense though.  There were no entry-level offerings planned and infrastructure was painfully inadequate.  Heck, we still don't have any direction on how apartments & condos will provide BEV support.  What was the logic of transition?  How would such a massive embrace for plugging in and an abandonment of combustion take place?  No one could explain it.  I was quite frustrated.  It's like electing the idiot we have in office now.  How could so many be so blind to his greed & selfishness?  Motivation should have been obvious... like it is for our automakers.  Long ago when Prius was new, they followed profit.  That's why vehicles became larger and larger.  It was an easy path to take.  Since when is it easy for BEV production & sales?  Ugh.  Playing offense now, I let those enthusiasts have it:  Proclamations of "all in" just 2 years ago didn't make sense.  Reasoning from enthusiasts didn't reflect the barriers we were facing with regard to resistance to change and the simple reality of infrastructure logistics.  History has also taught us being overly optimistic, focusing on want as a selling point rather than need, doesn't work.  True leadership doesn't work wearing rose-colored glasses.

Good Tech.  It's amazing how many engineers have absolutely no clue how business works.  Somehow, the new offering is supposed to rapidly scale up without any cost or need to prove itself.  For example, we get overly simplistic claims like this: "If it's good tech, they shouldn't need massive tax payer funded I incentives to sell."  Where exactly is funding supposed to come from?  Halting production at an existing plant means loss of revenue along with the expense to convert to produce the new tech.  The decision about what to cease building is a difficult choice too.  There are consequences.  Heck, no new tech comes without tradeoffs anyway.  That's why there are subsidies, to help make that choice easier.  After all, the objective to reduce environmental impact shouldn't be for the automaker alone.  They aren't the ones drilling oil, which also gets subsidies and tax breaks.  Anywho, I put it this way:  Ramping up production to reduce cost requires income in the meantime.  It's a massive upfront investment.  Profit from subsidies is intended to help with that.  At the same time, it helps confirm reliability for building both dealer & customer confidence.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, victory.  Sometimes, it works best to play offense.  In this case, I made sure the message of objective was clear.  Far too often, we have keyboard-warriors just looking to make themself feel better.  Rather than consider the big picture, it's all about victory in the moment.  Ugh.  I posted:  Know your audience.  For perspective, look at what happened with a totally different plug-in.  The same audience giving a "delusional" for bZ were giving "vastly superior" for Volt.  The difference between searching to find a balance for sustainable profit and the allure for conquest should have been a red flag; instead, we saw exchanges exactly like this.  Note which won the battles and which won the war.

Gas Stations.  I found this rather interesting: "Many gas stations will exist in 50 years.  The average car on the road is 12 years old.  The year EVs reach 100% sales that's the year they reach 10% of vehicles on the road."  All he did was take existing statistics to carry forward a timeline.  Not taking any change into account and assuming adoption is flat rather than a curve makes such a prediction pointless.  Thinking there's a single solution is obviously a problem too.  It's that same old "one for all" mentality.  Ugh.  Curious to see if I would get anything constructive in return, I posted:  With regard to a 12-year timeline, that's correct but doesn't reflect usage.   We'll reach a tipping point were the cost of gas rises significantly due to drop in demand.  Some will hold onto their ICE or hybrid when resale values tank, since it will still be running just fine.  But they'll end up buying a cheap BEV for their daily driving.  PHEV will play a big role in the drop for gas demand too.  We have already seen their sales boom in China.   With the 50-mile EV-mile minimum (required for ACC-II) and some supporting DCFC, interest as an BEV alternative will grow.  In other words, that average from the past doesn't take into account the paradigm shift favoring electricity consumption.

The Point?  Some people forget, losing sight of what the objective is.  That happens a lot when it comes to PHEV ownership when BEV owners make lot of assumptions.  Not coming from a situation where having a gas-engine backup is necessary, they don't recognize what adding DC fast-charging support means for a PHEV.  Having owned 2 generations of PHEV (from 2012 to 2023, then getting a BEV) and my wife still has hers, provides me with a powerful perspective.  That's why I have much to say when seeing a comment like this: "No chance I'd be rolling up to a 150 to 350kw DC charger and plugging in a waaaaaay slower than 150kw charging PHEV - and clog the spot - while full ev cars that charge super fast - wait in the cue. It'd kind of like being at Starbucks..."  Specifically seeing mention of a coffeeshop that triggered this reply from me:  Huh?  Starbucks is installing 125 kW 2-unit chargers, which drops to 62.5 kW each when 2 vehicles are plugged in.  The purpose is to get you to come in to enjoy a beverage & snack.  That type of non-gas-station EV support is exactly what we want to encourage.  It's a win for both business & consumer.  With regard to 350 kW, look at recent attempts to make them all that fast.  Newer stations handle load-balancing for a larger number of units (which reduces cost of providing more stalls).  So, it won't matter who plugs in.  The point is for everyone to get their 20-30 minutes of charging to take advantage of EV miles, regardless of how they are used.

The interesting twist will be coming from Toyota.  With their 6th-gen PHEV system, the bar is raised for EV driving.  With a 50-mile range and DCFC support, charging from 10% to 80% in 30 minutes changes the way you think about shopping.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, showroom shoppers.  He posted this same comment for a 5th time: "I thought they already delivered what "showroom shoppers" wanted"  That level of denial is fascinating.  I pointed out that posting the same incorrect assumption 5 times doesn't change anything.  Guess how he responded.  Ugh.  He changed "showroom shoppers" to "ordinary consumers".  I pointed out that didn't change anything, then put him on ignore.  I learned everything I could about how far his denial would take him with regard to how Toyota collected feedback.  To make a mass-appeal vehicle, they rolled out one that initially didn't check all the boxes.  It makes sense to test the waters initially, discovering firsthand what is truly needed (mainstream) verses what is wanted (enthusiasts).  They learned that early-adopter comments are a mixed bag, some useful for delivery of a vehicle configured to achieve both high-volume and sustained profit, while some only apply to niche appeal.  Those differences aren't obvious to keyboard warriors.  That's why offline sources are so vital.  With an initial low-volume, limited location availability rollout, you get great feedback without pushback or misinterpretation later... since showroom shoppers won't ever encounter the vehicle until that next-gen rollout.  It never ceases to amaze me how certain individuals have such a difficult time accepting that.  With this person, it's been going on for months.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, absurd.  Him becoming so blind to the obvious, I have to ask myself if anything constructive comes from such an exchange.  In this case, definitely.  I get to provide exposition as well as confirm my messaging is clear.  This is how I replied to his claim of "absurd" when pointing out that the initial rollout of bZ4X had nothing to do with what he had been trolling us with, on an article featuring a first look at the 2026 CH-R:  Assumption on your part was incorrect.  Not sure how you misinterpreted what I posted a few days ago: "bZ is repeating Prius history. That approach delivered a first-gen to gather mass-market feedback in preparation for a next-gen rollout targeting showroom shoppers."  Not only was that feedback used to determine configuration for the CH-R return to this market as a BEV, it was also applied to the 6th-gen PHEV system about to be rolled out.  Toyota did their homework using first-gen bZ as a test bed for future plug-ins... like they did for the first-gen Prius for future hybrids... like I have been saying for quite awhile now.