Think about where we currently are on the product life-cycle curve for plug-in vehicles.

Toyota's approach of a drop-in battery-pack means they will be able to take advantage of lighter, smaller, lower cost later.  No where does it say they have committed to older cells.  Newer will be used as the technology improves.  Those cells will be arranged in the stacks to create battery-packs for newer models of Prime.  Their design is already capable.

It isn't just the expense of batteries either.  There's the problem of production-capacity and energy-density as major holdbacks.  Overcoming that still leaves us with the liquid-electrolyte limitation.  It will all happen, but claiming "completely false" already is absurd.  What has been proven is being at the "lots of potential" point with a great deal of effort required to achieve all those goals.

Spinning Stance.  The most common response to my posts has been to spin my stance.  Someone will either twist what I say, take it out of context, or just totally make something up.  I always wonder if that is intentional to provoke online activity or they simply aren't paying attention.  For those troublemakers whom I have known years, it's especially bewildering.  There are posts where I wonder if they make assumptions based what they can only remember in part or they are actually remembering someone else.  That's why I'm taking the forceful stance now.  Being very direct eliminates most of the uncertainty.  We'll see if the nonsense continues or if I'm able to break the pattern.  It stands a chance of progress forward.  After all, the market itself is changing.

Remember that sales in high-volume to ordinary consumers are profoundly different.  Far too many here assume mainstream appeal is just a matter of delivering enough capacity at a reasonable price... hence the technology being affordable.  If it isn't, all those other purchase priorities people have can't also be delivered.  Early-Adopters are willing to compromise.  Buyers on the showroom floor are not... which is why Toyota is already working to deliver a variety of choices.

Common.  Ordinary.  Boring.  The transition from niche to ubiquitous is what early-adopters have a terrible time dealing with.  Ironically, their exposure & understanding of the technology makes them blind to what mainstream consumer don't see.  So neither group recognizes how each is interpreting the situation.  What is obvious for the one is often be an unknown for the other.  That's why a vehicle like Corolla is pretty much never mentioned by enthusiasts but is the first consideration for someone wandering around on the showroom looking for what to buy.  There's the difference between want & need too, seen from perspective that are far from the same in any respect.  This is why I face so many barriers getting those early-adopters to recognize what's important for an audience quiet unlike them.  Often, they'll just dismiss what I say, claiming I've lost tough with reality.  That's another irony, for me to be one of the few forum & blog posters who is more in touch with your typical shopper than any of their own peers online.  They still don't realize that even just the basic act of posting participation sets them apart.  It's why cars labeled as "common" or "ordinary" or "boring" get so little attention, despite being the top-sellers and the fundamental basis for business sustainability.  That necessary profit comes from those vehicles, not the niche they endorse with such praise.

As for your obvious attempt to divert attention away from discussion of legacy automaker approach, that's disappointing.  We need well informed people like you to help with the effort to get those traditional sellers (dealers) to embrace change they can actually influence.  They won't ever have a business model like Tesla, so it makes no sense treating them that way.  In other words, I reject your spin.  Legacy automaker finances & distribution are quite different.

Breaking the Deadlock.   I'm really starting to push now.  There are several individuals who like to play the game.  Hitting reset every time they begin to lose influence.  They try to keep you from drawing conclusions from pushing a misleading narrative or raising doubt.  I get really annoyed by the obvious efforts to divert discussions and the effort to repeat the same questions.  They hope whomever challenges them won't have the ability to push back hard enough.  I have earned the rank of a senior participant though.  After having whether so many battles in the past, resulting in several wars being won, it's time I take advantage of that experience.  Turns out, it's very difficult to argue with someone who has an extensive history to share that's so well summed up.  I hadn't realized all the blogging would develop the skill to see past rhetoric so well.  You learn to keep focus, regardless of how much of an influence the current hype is having.  It all comes down to having established concise goals.  That clarity is key... exactly like I theorized way back when... but since has been confirmed.  Phew!  This means I can come down rather intensely on particular individuals, intentionally making it personal.  It works when you stay focused on why.  It's not vengeance or malice.  It's the effort to find allies.  You don't try to destroy your enemy.  You work to find compromise.  Showing them a way forward can be that.  Extending a hand to move in a direction unfamiliar, but with a shared objective, can be very effective.  I intend to break the deadlock by showing force.  Remember how effective that was ages ago, when I directly confronted a diesel antagonist?

I'm tired of dealing with the nonsense of not taking market reach seriously.  That smug from enthusiasts can finally end by us not feeding them with material like "allude" when you know quite well that wasn't the case.  You are well aware of my background and my purpose.

Impressive.  That was his assessment of current sales.  Unfortunately, such a perspective requires absolutes.  I begged to differ by posting my own: "0% purchased without tax-credits is not impressive.  Don't be fooled by only paying attention to the low-hanging fruit."  That stirred exactly what I anticipated for a response: "So you really think EV sales will totally go away once the tax credits do?"  That's absurd.  There will always be some type of niche market.  The point though is to get the technology into the hands of mainstream buyers.  This is why I called out his limited scope.  It's easy to manipulate be simply cherry-picking data.  In this case, it was misrepresenting the market.  I provide a does of reality:  Absolutes are no way to form a constructive query.  We know that there will be some winners and some losers.  Dependency on subsidies will confirm weaknesses.  For example, today's disappointing announcement from GM (basically no plan and a small investment) seems to indicate a lack of interest.  We figured something would happen as the 50% reduction approached.