Prius Personal Log  #1150

June 12, 2022  -  June 17, 2022

Last Updated:  Sun. 9/18/2022

    page #1149         page #1151         BOOK         INDEX         go to bottom     



Fun To Drive.  What do you say to someone who posts a comment about the roar & rumble of an engine being what makes it fun to drive?  Many of us were dumbfounded.  If you seriously find pleasure from that, there is no way to appeal to you from several regards.  The most obvious is EV driving.  That smooth & silent is what you get regardless of "engine" size.  Turns out, that is true of "engine" type as well.  Think about what the luxury market has emphasized for decades.  The draw to their vehicles is about how little of the operation you are exposed to from within the cabin.  Being quiet and without vibration was a selling point.  That type of engineering was associated with quality.  When you can hear the vehicle and see it vibrating, that tends to indicate age and loss of value.  Ugh.  Needless to say, many of those reading such an outdated perspective didn't even bother to respond.  It's not where the market is heading.  In fact, the vehicles favoring that old-school appeal will just become more expensive to drive over time.  The price of gas going up and staying up seems like a very real possibility now.  What subsidize something falling out of favor?  Incentives related to fossil-fuels will get smaller and vanish.  Ironically, that transition away from gas will likely be smooth & quiet... which will be fun to witness!


Propaganda Sells.  It has now been a year since that guy producing several EV videos per day to make a living started his new channel.  In the old one, he liked Toyota.  That switch to his new identity, where he based Toyota at every opportunity, brought about a lot more attention.  That was a financial windfall.  Over 1,500 videos later, it is stronger than ever.  The anti-EV narrative his pushed is so bad, he has become the "Fox News" of the internet.  There are no quotes anymore.  There are new references anymore.  It is nothing but misleading & outdated statements mixed with outright lies.  It is mind-boggling how he treats his viewers.  They gobble up everything he dishes out.  Watching propaganda on the scale is quite disturbing.  Rhetoric transformed into a money-making machine.  He uses words like "illogical" and "nonsense" without actually supporting his claims.  It's just a bunch of b-roll footage with vague mention.  Absence of detail is remarkable.  It works too.  All you have to do is ensure there's no context, just appear upset and convey a sense of dismay.  Of course if you pay attention, the blatant dishonesty speaks for itself... just like we have seen from other propaganda sources.  That nonsense sells.  Ugh.


Cherry Picking & Risk Taking.  It is very easy now to tell who's in favor of reaching the masses and who's just an enthusiast favoring the push for more speed & power.  You don't support those taking risks that don't push limits.  If it isn't something that is easy to cheer for, they downplay & undermine.  In other words, the focus is want, not need.  That is why we have has so many problems with adoption here in the United States.  In other places, like Europe, where people are not obsessed (the "more" mindset) it is far easier to stir interest.  People see the longevity and low operational costs of EV technology.  That's why risk taking without obvious benefit... like the semi-conductor upgrade Toyota is pursuing... falls on deaf ears here.  That effort would result in a more efficient EV drive system.  People here don't care about that; instead, we are promoting electricity guzzlers.  Ugh.  Sadly, all you can do is point out the misplaced priorities.  So, I do:  Nice cherry-picking... pretend the faster version doesn't exist.  Ugh.  Reality is, the version of bZ4X using the Panasonic supplied battery is notably faster.  It's rated for 150 kW and does indeed deliver faster DC charging.  The version of bZ4X shown on that graph is with the CATL supplied battery.  It appears to be slower due to it being the LFP type instead.  That shows Toyota is willing to take a risk by trying out a different chemistry at the same time.  In the case of LFP, that favors longevity over speed & range... a trait Toyota's customer will likely prefer... hence giving it a try starting with a limited rollout.


Rested Narrative.  The common theme is that Toyota bet the farm on hydrogen technology, disregarding EVs in the process.  For example: "Toyota were dumb to sit on their laurels and think hydrogen was a good idea.  But they have had record profit and could possibly leapfrog everybody if the solid state battery plan they have actually pans out."  Those claiming that don't see the necessity for industrial & commercial power to stop using diesel.  They don't see the benefit of starting with passenger cars as a means of conveying that message either, despite the extremely powerful enticement that hands-on experience provides.  Think about what it would be like for a potential fleet purchaser to get to drive a hydrogen vehicle.  You find out firsthand what the experience is like.  That's especially helpful for non-driving applications, like construction sights.  Think about how many need generators.  How else would you learn about the potential a fuel-cell stack has for providing electricity.  Heck, for that matter the same can be said for electricity needed for charging-stations.  If you want to deliver a lot of power to a lot of vehicles, do you really expect all of it to come from the power lines?  Why not tap into the potential hydrogen offers?  Solar does that already, but not as quickly or aggressively or extensively as what you can get from hydrogen.  The EV components of fuel-cell vehicles are shared with BEV anyway.  So, what's the problem with diversifying and selling more than just passenger vehicles?  Anywho, this is how I responded to that short-sightedness today:  Toyota never rested.  They continued to invest in EV components & software, clearly demonstrated by the success with the Prime models.  The bi-polar battery they just rolled out along with solid-state progress is obvious effort to push electrification forward too.  Let's not forget the new BEV coolant they just rolled out either.  As for the diversification in hydrogen, there is still lots of industrial & commercial opportunity for that.


3.5 Million.  That annual target for 8 years from now really has some people at a loss.  Logic completely fails those claiming Tesla growth potential based solely upon growth history.  I am left perplexed how brainless that is.  You can't just produce more and expect more to be purchased.  Models get old and not everyone wants the same thing.  That is such a basic concept, you'd think it would be obvious.  Clearly, it is not.  I shouldn't have to remind people of that.  Yet, I do:  Tesla doesn't sell in the same markets.  The vehicles they produce are completely absent from the "affordable" category.  Their prices are high and their profits are high... quite different from Toyota.  Imagine Tesla actually delivering a $25,000 vehicle with a razor-thin profit.  That is something Toyota does exceptionally well and they are painfully aware of delivering BEV of that nature taking longer than 2030 in markets with challenged infrastructure... hence a balance hybrid and PHEV.  Reality is, Toyota knows their audience and enthusiasts don't want to face the reality of that difference.  Just look at how much ridicule has come from priorities of range, efficiency, and longevity.


Automaker Bashing.  We see it with each of them.  There is a catch though.  This was today's: "Silly Tesla bashing again.  I don't like them myself but this is just tiresome.  Name a car maker who never made a duff vehicle."  When something with shortcomings is rolled out, you discuss the shortcomings.  Declaring the automaker's fate is doomed doesn't make sense; yet, we are constantly being told Toyota bankruptcy is inevitable.  Notice how I didn't ever do that with GM during any of the Two-Mode, Volt or Bolt nonsense?  Each of those efforts were destined to fail, but it was due to the shortcoming... unwillingness to diversify.  That's not bashing.  That's not bankruptcy.  That's just a project not succeeding, by choice.  No amount of downplay or diversion changes the situation.  It is a statement of fact.  All 3 suffered from not spreading the technology, which is the opposite of what Toyota has done.  Despite all the posts focusing solely on Prius, portraying hybrid history as if it only consisted of a single vehicle, reality is there were many choices offered.  Success can from diversifying.  Think about what is really important the next time someone brings up claims of bashing.  Here's what I had to say about that:  It doesn't work that way.  People were attacking Toyota's first BEV prior to it even rolling.  They knew all too well the hardware & software for EV driving was already well refined based on PHEV success.  They also knew Toyota wouldn't ever allow the fit & finish shortcomings we routinely hear about with Tesla; yet, people just dismiss that as unimportant.


Battery Type.  There was a new video today with this title: "Here Are Features Your Next EV Should Have (And Could Help Sell It Later On!)"  Knowing the source was reputable, but bias against Toyota, I was intrigued.  The first feature mentioned was DC fast-charging speed.  The recommendation as a minimum of 150 kW... which did indeed imply what you think... a subtle statement against the purchase of either Leaf or Bolt.  Since both are much slower at charging, neither is worth the time on a road trip.  I was rather surprised considering how that was of such minor importance in the past and especially how charging locations are becoming more common.  Another surprise is no mention of a heat-pump.  Several people called out that omission.  What did get labeled as essential was the plug & pay feature.  Supposedly, you shouldn't have to be troubled to use a credit-card.  The simple act of plugging in should recognize your account and automatically provide billing information.  Why is that a must have?  People have been paying at the pump with their credit-card for twenty years now.  Ugh.  I ended up getting more and more annoyed as I watched.  When it concluded, I posted this comment:  BATTERY TYPE is an interesting omission when the topic includes "could help sell it later" advice.  LFP stands out in that regard; yet, it wasn't mentioned.  That type of battery is less expensive, more robust, and offers significantly better longevity... exactly what you want for higher resale value.  We see strong sales of the LFP equipped Tesla due in part to exactly that.  We also see quite a bit of looking down upon Toyota despite the fact that their slower DC charging model (AWD in North America) exhibits traits hinting that it too could be LFP equipped.


More Assumptions.  It isn't just cost that people make assumptions about.  The majority are clueless about charging: "Only problem is there won't be enough power available to charge them all in one day ?????"  Gotta love how a conclusion is draw but it is in the form of a question.  This follows the studies of how people are wildly incorrect about how much range they will actually need from day to day.  bZ4X easily fulfills the measures showing how around 150 miles covers virtually all ordinary needs and the upcoming push for DC fast-chargers every 50 miles the rest.  It isn't really a chicken or egg situation anymore.  Both have already been addressed.  People just don't feel comfortable yet.  We see daily use completely satisfied.  With level-2 charging at home, you have everything you need.  There won't be any range-anxiety at all if you don't travel anywhere beyond the usual routine.  A range of +200 miles exceeds that need, even in the dead of winter.  Here's how I replied to the concern about there being enough:  The entire battery-pack won't need to recharged everyday.  Most people drive less than 40 miles daily.  Also, the mandate would be for new car sales.  Gas cars will remain in service.


Assumptions.  This post was a great example of know your audience: "Cost 40,000.  Now look at electric bill.  I have no more time, just compared cost on own."  People make quick determination of cost, then draw a conclusion.  I have seen it again and again.  They are just plain wrong most of the time, so far off you have to wonder how.  Sometimes, you do actually find out.  It was being lazy.  He didn't bother.  That's how we end up with assumptions feeding a narrative.  Basically, they just follow their gut and don't care if it is accurate or not... since it feels right.  Here's how I replied to that nonsense:  $29,000 for a Bolt.  At $3.00 per gallon, driving 100 miles in a 30 MPG vehicle will cost you $10.  Charging at home with an overnight cost of $0.12 per kWh, driving 100 miles in a medium-efficiency EV (that's 3 miles/kWh) will cost you $4.  So even with bad cheap, you're still better off with an EV.


Outdated Claims.  This is playing out very much like hybrids.  At some point, antagonists come to realize their argument is falling part... it really is up to the chore.  Coming to that revelation, they just turn back the clock and re-argue the same nonsense.  You see them pretending their own criteria was never met.  Rather than moving the goal-posts, they instead assert we are still waiting... it's not time yet... that a state of readiness has not be achieved.  For example: "Now once again cart before the horse.  Tech for batteries and charging not good enough or caught up."  It's a no-win situation.  No matter what comes first, something will follow.  All the aspects of a paradigm-shift will not mature & spread at exactly the same time in exactly the same way.  Knowing that, all you can do is convey a sense of progress to show everyone else the antagonist has omitted something important.  Whether or not the antagonist really knew about that or your post becomes a teaching-moment doesn't matter.  The point is drawing attention to the outdated nature of the claim.  In the case today, here's how I did that:  That's an outdated claim.  LFP batteries (of which the final patent just expired less than 2 months ago) are much less expensive than batteries of prior EVs requiring nickel & cobalt and they last roughly 3 times longer.  And with the charging standard having settled on CCS using 150 kW as a base speed, there's simply no argument anymore.  The tech is now to the point of ready for the masses.


Forced To Carry.  The previous post feel on deaf ears.  He had no proof.  Exactly as anticipated, posts would become the waste.  No merit to claims is common.  That's why I always ask for detail.  Turning to the next exchange, I got this: "So they're forced to carry them."  Again, draw a conclusion and present nothing supportive.  I was amused by the irony.  He thought he had backed me into a corner.  Actually, I had done that to him.  It's a classic mistake when you are poorly informed.  Not knowing or understanding the market factors at play is the shortcoming in this case.  There are still MPG standards to meet.  That means dealers much carry vehicles to help achieve those standards.  Whether you care about the "MPGe" value or not, that Miles-Per-Gallon-Equivalent number really does come into play for the automaker.  It means they must offset carbon emissions created by sales of guzzlers with sales of vehicles that have less of an environmental impact.  With the availability of plug-in vehicles, achieving that is easier.  It's why so many hate Toyota, since their hybrids can deliver significant reduction even without a plug.  In reality, being "forced" is more of a perception issue and fear is a motivator.  Fighting change is instinct.  That's why I kept my reply to the point:  Dealers are already forced to carry vehicles to meet minimum efficiency requirements.  EVs make fulfilling that criteria easier.  It is a win-win currently obscured by fear of the unknown.


Lawsuit Filed.  The car dealers here (Minnesota) filed a lawsuit to block the adoption of California rules already voted upon and passed into law.  It will require inventory to be supplied, which in turn results in the automaker having to produce more.  Since the law doesn't actually take affect until 2024 and gas prices are making the case for EV support simple, the fight is becoming absurd.  On what basis is this resistance supported?  I jumped into the article comments within Facebook by posting: "Incorrect assumptions is the real problem.  In this case, there is no requirement forcing the sale of EVs.  It is only that dealers need to carry a minimum inventory so those who are interested can actually purchase one."  Since my comments will be visible to those following my feed, I am intrigued how they'll respond to the rhetoric.  Knowing there will be quite a bit of fight to result from what I said, it was no surprise how quickly I got this in return: "So dealers are being forced by the government to waste money and space on vehicles the citizens don't want to purchase.  How is that supposed to be legal?"  In other words, rather than actually address the issue or present any data, it would be a matter of right or wrong.  Ugh.  I knew that would happen.  People inevitably draw conclusions prior to having anywhere near enough information to do so constructively.  That is definitely the situation with this.  So, I asked:  Where is the proof of waste?  Sales of EVs have been extremely strong, with very long waiting lists... hence the very reason for making inventory available.


back to home page       go to top