Stepping back away from the technology itself, there's the reality that GM dealers and GM customers simply aren't interested in compact hatchback offerings.  They want SUV and CUV choices.  Not seeing anything with a plug, or even just a regular hybrid, in that type of vehicle makes you wonder how long it will take for something competitive with traditional choices will finally be offered.

Prius Recall.  Looks like 192,000 Prius from 2016 to 2018 model-years in the United States will be recalled due to a potential wear issue with a wire-harness.  Over time, there could be the possibility of that causing a short circuit resulting in a vehicle fire.  Worldwide total is roughly one million hybrids.  Either a protective sleeve or tape will be installed, depending upon the condition of the wire.  This is a voluntary recall, the type that is looked upon as a proactive measure... but you know the potential it leaves for antagonists to spin it as a major problem.  Ugh.  Oh well, it's not like there won't be some other recall from some other automaker at some point.  Remember, you reap what you sow.

Plug-In Basics.  I started writing up a new document to inform people of how a plug-in vehicle works.  It covers the basics, providing an introduction.  We have a new audience emerging.  These are those who have nothing in common with early-adopters.  These are the wondering minds who have heard about plugging in but really don't know where to start.  I'm hoping to provide that type of guide with this.  It's a high-level summary sharing concepts you need to know for understanding how to start your purchase research.  Since the goal is simplicity, it will take quite a bit of effort to find the right content.  There will be some photos & illustrations, but nothing complicated.  Think of it as a summary for confirming interest.  We need to show that there really isn't anything to be intimidated about.  It really is next step many can take without concern.  In reality, you're just plugging in your car just like you do with your phone.  The power needs truly are simple to fulfill.  You just have to understand the basics.

Mainstream.  Measure of progress shouldn't change.  If it does, that's called "moving the goal posts".  Targets (and milestones along the way) are set for very specific reasons.  That's how you determine how well things are going.  If there's a shift of some sort, it should relate to refinements of the product itself, not sales.  You still must have purchases to have a viable product.  Falling under a predetermined threshold means you'll loss money.  Contracts with vendors and expectations from resellers is a delicate balance of supply & demand.  This is why minimums are identified.  Back when Prius was still new, that level was clear.  All efforts to exceed that success equated to selling more than that minimum.  It was that simple.  To "out Prius, Prius", you must achieve more purchases.  That doesn't mean delivering an excessive inventory, then having to slash prices to clear out what doesn't sell at a profitable level.  It means true sustainable sales.  I was annoyed by someone attempting to redefine "mainsteam" and rewrite history as a result:  For the last 15 years, the term "mainstream" has represented a green vehicle available nationwide that was able to support itself financially.  With respect to sales, that worked out to minimum annual sales of 60,000.  This is why sales of Volt falling well short of 5,000 monthly was always a concern.  Not achieving that prior to tax-credit phaseout meant business sustainability of the tech would be in jeopardy... which is exactly what we are witnessing now.  In other words, dealers will have no desire to stock a low-profit vehicle.

Careful.  A few days ago when sales results were revealed, we got the typical "vastly superior" response from a Volt enthusiast.  Ugh.  It was that same old nonsense I had dealt with for years.  My reaction to that was posting some advice:  Careful with the LOL posting.  GM was able to deliver at a loss with tax-credit dependency.  Doing the same without subsidy help for a profit is far more difficult.

Public recharging is in the earliest stages still.  We see a lot of standard uncertainty combined with a user-base poorly informed about what kW and kWh represent.  Not understanding efficiency measure values and charging speeds, as well as the related costs, make adoption a nightmare.  How do you attract business & consumer interest when there is such a basic shortcoming of knowledge along with the lack of actual chargers to use?  There's the unknown of charger-etiquette too.

Watch what happens with the market as tax-credit phaseout is triggered.  Also, keep in mind the potential mid-cycle upgrades Toyota has had to consider for Prius Prime, as well as Prius itself.  Change is coming.

Understanding Efficiency.  There was an article published 2 days ago pointing out the extreme inefficiency of an upcoming EV from a high-performance automaker.  Of the 204 comments posted, only 1 understood what was being addressed.  Everyone else had the same old rhetoric to spread about electricity being better, regardless of how it was used.  Interestingly, they don't actually know.  This quote from the article itself is what I found especially disturbing: "We don't know why, exactly, efficiency is rated as kWh per 100 miles instead of the obviously-more-sensible miles per kWh, but that is what the government has proclaimed to be the proper metric, so pipe down."  That's not good for a website thought to be a green authority not understanding how efficiency is depicted.  They are obviously expecting a unit in terms of the way MPG is represented.  Not having any idea how flawed the MPG system is should raise concern.  It's not used by most of the rest of the world because it is so misleading.  Think about a small truck getting 30 MPG and a large car getting 35 MPG.  The difference is 5 MPG, right?  What does that really mean?  People don't know.  Traveling 100 miles, the 30 MPG vehicle will consume 3.33 gallons.  The 35 MPG vehicle will consumed 2.86 gallons.  That implies the 5 MPG difference equates to 0.47 gallons.  It doesn't though.  Traveling that same 100 miles with a 40 MPG vehicle will consume 2.5 gallons.  The 5 MPG difference equates to 0.36, not 0.47 gallons.  The next 5 MPG increment reveals a 0.30 difference.  In other words, the measure is not linear.  People assume it is.  That's a very real problem.  This is why the government is not using that measure for electricity.  It would allow misrepresentation the same way.  Too bad the publisher thinks the "miles per" representation is more sensible.  You want to know exactly how much fuel is used, that's the "gallons per" measure... or in our case, "kilowatts per".  Note that the rest of the world uses a distance of 100 kilometers.  Our government uses 100 miles.  The point is, you want a lower value.  The fewer the kilowatts (kWh) of electricity consumed, the better.  That's the opposite of MPG, which a higher value is better.  See why there's confusion?  Take the time to really undertstand what it all means.  Once you do, it opens up a world of comprehending even the supposed experts don't see.

All along, it should have been a design from GM that would draw high-volume profitable sales.  That's what bottom-up is all about.  Toyota targeted ordinary consumers, delivering a well-balanced platform which could be easily diversified to a wide product-line.  We see that with the Corolla, C-HR, Camry, and RAV4 hybrids... each capable of simple adaptation to provide a plug, as Prius has now proven.  The "start from the top" approach with both Two-Mode and Volt resulted in nothing but sales struggle.  Whatever you want to call that difference, it clearly didn't reach the masses.

Knock Knock.  One form of spin that is actually appropriate is to turn the spotlight back on the antagonist.  After all, their effort is often a means of taking attention away from them.  Putting it back on is constructive, especially if you can take advantage by using some of their own rhetoric against them.  Today, this was the provoke: "...but it shows that Toyota is still dragging its feet and would not be entering the EV market unless it had to."  I was amused.  That only works if you cherry-pick by refusing to address the next stage, as I asked:  How is that any different from GM entering the market, but not doing anything with it?  That passive-aggressive stance GM has taken is actually worse.  They rollout token offerings, do nothing, then end up claiming there was no interest.  Sound familiar?  Rather than waiting to come out with a product that competitive with traditional vehicles, they rushed.  When has not taking time to do it right been a bad choice?  People are portraying Toyota's effort to make plugging in a sustainable business that doesn't have tax-credit dependency a mistake.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Yet, we hear "fallen behind" all the time without any actual substance to support it.  If GM were really far ahead, they would have sales to prove it; instead, we see Volt & Bolt having eaten all the low-hanging fruit... a market without any early-adopters remaining.  In other words, no one is knocking on GM's door.

Debate Takeaways.  That encounter with a Volt enthusiast brought about an interesting new perspective.  Debates often do, if you can stick with them and pay close attention.  The key is to remain concise and to not take their bite.  All most care about is winning, even if the declaration of victory has no merit.  Having the appearance of being cornered is what they look for.  I hunt for substance, like buried treasure, some little nugget of new information.  In this case, it was a revisit of the Volt "lite" model.  Remember those dicussions?  Few do.  So, this was pretty much a new discussion without anything to start from.  He just made the assumption "lite" meant a smaller battery-pack.  That was it, nothing else.  In the past, other aspects of design would be tappered back too.  But those weren't ever really addressed, since the rhetoric impeeded progres.  That didn't happen this time.  I was able to actually address design.  It was rewarding to be able to sight such a simple and oversight on their part, something I'll be able to use later in other discussions to quickly bring debates to an end.  That's the type of takeaway you always hope to gain.  Here's is the one I got:  Think about the unnecessary cost & complexity of the T-shaped battery back.  None of that would have been needed with a smaller capacity.