Prius Personal Log #1086
August 8, 2021 - August 14, 2021
Last Updated: Sun. 11/28/2021
page #1085 page #1087 BOOK INDEX
Which is larger? Having to ask that question boggles the mind; yet, it was necessary. I heard this story and was dumbfounded by hearing the outcome. So, I posted it online. History repeated. It was ironic to have someone claim that wasn't possible, even though I had pointed out exactly that with a link. Detail was right there, complete with photos. It was denied anyway. Ugh. The situation was one of marketing decades ago. A&W was struggling to complete with hamburger sales. They had the idea of selling a third-pound burger for the same price as a quarter-pounder. You get the bigger burger. More is better, right? Turns out, people can't do math. The concept of "more" was equated to seeing a larger number. That "4" in the fraction was a bigger number than "3", so it was assumed to mean the size was bigger. A&W was bewildered by the response. They had no clue fractions were so misunderstood by so many of their customers. This is how "know your audience" comes about. When you come to the realization that "1/4" is perceived as greater than "1/3", you have a very real problem. This is why stating efficiency in terms of percentage or miles-per-gallon can so easily be used to manipulate people's belief. Their perspective is based upon incorrect assumption. That's why using logic in some scenarios is pointless. They don't get it. Some never take the time to verify information. An assessment can often be quick & thoughtless. It's a very real & difficult problem to overcome when you are dealing with plug-in vehicles. Decades of false, misleading, and harmful claims have been made to obscure the truth to the degree that people have no idea anymore. They just make a wild guess and don't care whether or not it is actually correct.
Not Significant. You gotta love the downplay. There is a desperate effort to kill PHEV support. Those purist BEV enthusiasts absolutely hate the idea of anything other than battery-only being endorsed as a means of quickly reducing carbon emissions. Anything "hybrid" is just lumped into a single category and dismissed. Their test-the-water post starts with a comment about denigrating hybrids in general. I enjoyed reading today's desperate attempt. It was pathetic. There are many different types of hybrid without a plug. For an entire decade, that was all too clear. Now with the addition of a plug, hybrid operation following depletion is a big mystery. Much of that you can place blame upon Volt enthusiasts. They would downplay HV efficiency & operation to such an extreme, most people have no clue how it actually worked. In fact, we have owners who still make incorrect claims about their own vehicle. Ugh. Needless to say, I have a wealth of knowledge documented from that time, detail antagonists absolutely hate. So, I post some from time to time. Today was such an occasion, claiming there was not a significant difference: Calling a hybrid using a 48-volt system to power a starter-motor the same as a hybrid with a 600-volt system using a traction-motor that delivers 27 kW of power is an act of denial. They are so profoundly different, there's no constructive reason to lump them into a single category. In fact, it's an act of desperation. Imagine if all BEV were dumped into a single category... everything from a Tesla Plaid to a golf cart.
Flexible Fuel Vehicle. I continue to see "FFV" being incorrectly used. That's tolerable, though somewhat troubling since it can also be misleading. This was an indication of it crossing the line: "Took me a second to pick up on FFV, as I commonly used ICEV. I think FFV is much more to the point." Because it was a reference used by someone who frequently publishes articles on one of the green websites, I decided it was time to stir his attention. Using that comment to reply to would, since he was part of that particular reply. So, I posted: FFV = Flexible Fuel Vehicle. That's what those of us who supported green choices long before this crowd think when FFV is used. It's a disservice to re-purpose an abbreviation already recognized in the same realm of discussion.
Exaggeration. We still have a long way to go when it comes to messaging: "It's going to be so painful for those owning expensive ICE SUV's and trucks. If you have $75,000 invested in a truck and another $75,000 in an SUV and can't sell them period your going to really hate yourself." Seeing that posted was quite a disappointment. I sounded off with: Exaggeration doesn't help our cause. A quick search for mid-grade F-150 price puts them at half what you quoted. The same is true for SUV prices. Those who purchase years earlier will already know about the shift to electric and won't be overly considered about resale. Their choice to purchase a gas-guzzler is an upfront decision, something they are well aware of when they sign the dotted line. Remember decades ago when the pickup was only used for recreation? That's what will end up happening with those old gas-guzzlers. It's not like they will become completely worthless. Put another way, the supposed pain is really a boil-the-frog situation. People will find a way to justify that purchase years ago, just like they do now. Know your audience and don't exaggerate. Those opposed to change and those in favor of change will both point out cherry-picked examples.
Collapse. Writers of blog articles read posts for
ideas about what to write about next. As hoped, that incredibly vague
graph got the attention I wanted. That's why I kept pushing.
That tit-for-tat posting is a dead giveaway of interest for a topic to go
more into depth about. That's what happened today. The timing I
had question was addressed... in the form of industry collapse discussion.
That worked for me. I dove right into it:
It's nice to see WHEN finally being addressed. Advocates tend to gloss over detail of timing. Enthusiasts insist timing shouldn't even be a concern. There is no argument BEV will become dominant. Challenges from pushback & production cannot be ignored though.
We will see over-supply of ICEV and OIL in the meantime. PHEV with EV drive (not the basic assist type) will play a major role in the promotion of BEV. They contribute to upgrades where people park overnight, especially at households with multiple vehicles. Owners seek out faster charging and time-of-use discounts at their own pace in their own way. The point is they become interested. They choose to embrace the technology as they become more familiar with it.
In other words, there won't be a "collapse" of any sort. The expectation of a dramatic Osborne Effect isn't realistic. The worldwide market is too large and too dynamic. Look at how much "boil a frog" reporting there has been lately. For a typical consumer, they have known this is coming for countless years. There is very much a "wait and see" attitude still, just like there was for hybrids. That puts automakers in a very difficult position. There is a big dependency on messaging from others... like government investing for infrastructure and DC fast-charging expectations.
Doomed. You can't help but to be amused by statements like this: "Auto manufactures, like Toyota, who are sticking with HEVs are doomed." It's the very reason I bring up "know your audience" so often. You can ask "Who?" in so many of these arguments. They post claims to self-validate, not to actually make any progress. That tactic of spreading FUD is so desperate. Fear, really? Ugh. I responded to that with: Not sure who you are trying to convince with that narrative. People here will see PHEV and ZEV choices as they expand. Toyota will be recognized as moving forward in this market. In markets where there is serious lack of infrastructure, of course HEVs will continue. The new bi-polar battery for gen-2 Aqua (starting at $17,995) makes a lot of sense. It's much cleaner and more efficient than any ICEV, while also affordable. In other words, that's a very effective means of reducing both CARBON and SMOG emissions in areas were plugging isn't realistic. What exactly will other auto manufacturers sell there?
Teaching Moment. This was the telling statement: "Simply saying that something that is happening, isn't happening, and throwing up the same old tired excuses about BEV rollouts, won't stop what is happening, from happening." I was pleasantly amused by that attempt to confuse. Vague messaging followed by such a meaningless statement tells the real story of constructive discussion. He clearly wasn't interested. It was the ending of that which really brought that intend to clarity: "Anyways, I hope you are now less worried about the timeline, the problems facing an expanded rollout of BEV's, and the reduction in ICEV sales that we are already starting to see which is greater than the rollout of BEV's (supply limitations)." That literally says nothing. Supposedly, I was concerned about nothing. Not getting anything whatsoever to support his claims was frustrating, but I expected that as an outcome. My point was to draw attention to his refusal to try. He didn't even bother. That type of attitude is exactly why Volt enthusiasts fell. One by one, their lack of preparation for what laid ahead caused retreat. They lost GM's war. We can't afford that on the larger scale, with plug-in offerings. GM's downfall being enabled by enthusiasts was quite unfortunate. Confirmation that their vague support contributed so much to that was vindicating, as well as being a teaching moment for everyone. This was too. I posted: I have been providing details to promote PHEV and BEV for years. If that is what you consider supportive evidence, you're done. Simply saying it is "happening" as if there is no way to impede that progress is terribly naive. Naysayers will tear you down in a handful of exchanges. You want to win a battle or end the war? In other words, I pushed to see if you would accept that there are some barriers remaining to overcome still. Let your guard up, they'll find a weakness to exploit. Don't give them an opportunity. You should be concerned about the absence of detail. For example, your "...the reduction in ICEV sales that we are already starting to see which is greater than the rollout of BEV's (supply limitations)." What does that mean? How much greater? Why such a blatant exclusion of hybrids and plug-in hybrids? It's all quite vague and very easy to spin. Again, don't give them an opportunity.
Circular Arguments. Some type of damage control always follow a story change. To argue so much about specific dates, then suddenly say the timeline is notional, is an obvious attempt to repair image. What he did in this case was try to turn the argument back on my, to state it in a manner to make it look like I was back at the start. That is the "reset" approach. They want to put the focus on you, so no one notices they were the actual troublemaker... the one unwilling to simply explain the claim they had posted. Putting the blame on you for the posting mess is a common confusion tactic. Some casual reader not paying attention could easily have a difficult time following the flow. There's a lot of deception at play, especially when the outright lies get called out with supportive data. Circling back around to the point in which the argument appeared in their favor is a safe place to end. That's the damage control, ineffective or not, to watch for. I kept my reply to that nonsense brief: I request detail to explain how the timeline on the graphic will be achieved and you refer me back to the vague graphic. Absence of substance like that is exactly why the timeline is questioned.
Still Cherry-Picking. Limited context continues to be
a problem. Enthusiasts simply select data favorable to their argument,
ignoring the rest. For example:
"The way it actually works is that with reduced demand, costs go up, because
the fixed cost part of the equation becomes larger. So the price of ICE
vehicles (new) will go UP, along with the price of FUEL." I
pointed out the following, a broader view of the true problem: That
would be in a closed system. The world is not. There will be lots of
over-supply and over-capacity. That will keep prices down in multiple ways,
changing demand and the pressure to accept lower profit margins. Of
course, the situation isn't really as certain individuals present. That
narrative of there only being ICEV and BEV became a real problem with the
reality of the IPCC report. Think about how vital it is to get as
many plug-in vehicles to as many people as possible. They will have to
compromise their purity push for the best use of both resources &
infrastructure. In other words, producing one 75 kWh capacity BEV doesn't
make sense when those same cells can be used to make four PHEV like RAV4
Prime. When you look at the bigger picture...
4 PHEV = daily driving that's routinely 100% electric
1 BEV + 3 ICEV = 75% gas and only 25% electric
In other words, this was an exercise to get recognition of what it will really take to fulfill the stated timeline.
Story Change. After pushing and pushing and pushing, he changed his story: "The timeline here is notional. It can be slowed down or speeded up, but it is going to happen." Up until that post, I was attacked relentlessly for questioning how 2025 and 2030 were written in stone already. Show me the data fell on deaf ears. If I was questioning their conclusion, I was against electrification. No matter how many times I would agree about progress and asked for clarification on timing, they wouldn't hear it. When should not be challenged. In other words, I confirmed who was the stupid one. You can't just schedule business change based on hope. A solid basis for the investment is required. Resources are finite and you want best use of them, allocated to the correct area when it can be most beneficial. I'm well aware most don't have an extensive background like myself (my Bachelor's degree included a minor in business and I have been very active with the automotive green movement for over 2 decades), but that should be this much of a problem. They tend to believe simply building more vehicles will solve the problem. Market differences and customer diversity within each is something they are completely oblivious to. So, I have to just keep pushing with my background to flush out an understanding. In this case, he finally got it. That abrupt story change was confirmation. Phew!
Cherry Picking. It's quite bizarre seeing such a level of stupidity. I still haven't figured out if that is a trait of the poster or if they hope it is of you. We keep getting this though in the arguments about timing: "How will the incremental improvements in efficiency from a hybrid..." I keep asking for detail. What is the plan? There's a graph that was provided by a purist who's attacked me a number of times. He believes there will be a dramatic shift to BEV in 3 years and that we should be able to hit 100% sales here in the United States by the end of the decade. Trouble is, none of the replies make any mention of PHEV. Many are pretending they don't exist. It is a narrative which presents the situation in a polarizing manner, nothing in between. Either you are for BEV or you are in favor something powered entirely by gas. There's nothing in between. A clue to this being an upcoming problem was the "self-charging" upheaval. There was a refusal to acknowledge an effort to separate hybrids from plug-in hybrids. In their minds, they are all the same. In fact, we keep getting claims of PHEV never being plugged in. That complete absence of detail from that is exactly why I'm asking for it now. There's no actual plan. No schedule. No consequences. They don't care. They just want to feel like progress is being made. To look at the numbers, you find incremental makes a huge impact very quickly with lasting results. They don't care. Just cherry-picking is easier. Ugh. I simply posted this in response to that nonsense: It is only incremental if you cherry-pick, in other words, feed a narrative. Reality is, Toyota is upgrading the entire fleet with a staggered approach. The vehicles further along have already been through their hybrid phase and now we are seeing both BEV and PHEV models.