DC Charging Sessions, questions.  Discussion related to this old charging mention about DC sessions came up again: "three sessions (10% to 80%) per day".  Naturally, I have concern about assumptions getting out of hand.  We don't have any production 2026 on the road yet to critique or measure.  Speculation going unchecked is quite likely without intervention.  So I intervened, asking:  How many of the typical 20% to 65% sessions does that translate to?  What speed does fast DC slow down to upon reaching that threshold?  Assumptions about those questions are feeding speculation, which sets us up for the same misleading statements as the previous generation.

Phasing Out.  There is an absolute still in play.  Binary consideration is usually counter-productive for transitions.  In this case, that is definitely the outcome.  Like I have said many times, enthusiasts tend to be their own worst enemy.  They don't believe that phasing out something is possible.  There's a fear any small step will be the only step taken.  That's why the attitude is fi the vehicle uses any gas whatsoever, it does not represent progress.  Or put their way: "Making hybrids that people rarely, if ever, charge or hybrids that can't be charged isn't phasing out ice."  There is a bit of a panic now.  It wasn't supposed to be possible to increase range so much and no plug-in hybrid was ever expected to take advantage of DC charging.  But when the battery is large enough, there's a very real benefit.  They see that now too.  They want to suppress any interest in that.  Their claim of never being plugged in gets increasingly difficult as range increases too.  The only reason to pay a premium is to get that.  There are no tax-credits or HOV privledges anymore.  You buy a PHEV specifically for the EV ability.  Here's what I had to say about that:  Toyota customers shopping the showroom, discovering RAV4 is only available as a hybrid and that it has a plug-in model offering enough EV miles to cover their daily driving couldn't care less about your "rarely, if ever" charge claim.  Rhetoric of the past me nothing to them.  They'll see the 52 miles, then consider the value it offers.  Know your audience.

Recalled Again.  Reputation for Tesla is has been tested repeatedly over the past year, all related to how terrible of an image Cybertruck has cast.  It overshadowed rollout of the refreshed Model Y, which is really unfortunate.  Tesla needed that to help dissuade any more pushback from Elon's political mess.  Oh well.  This is that reality: "6,197 Cybertrucks are being recalled because the full-width lightbar may detach, which, of course, increases the risk of an accident."  There were over 600 warranthy claims filed before the recall came about.  It was an issue with the glue... something a software update cannot fix.  Of course, let's not forget the stop-sale that came about for Chevy Blazer EV as a result of its software being so bad, a halt was the best course of action.  People do forget though... because they prefer to attack the easier target, Toyota.  Ugh.  But then, I'm playing offense now.  So, no need to wait for the rhetoric.  I can work to prevent that and provide perspective with posts like this:  It's truly remarkable how much Toyota got attacked with "wheels falling off" taunts when no wheels actually ever fell off.  There was a manufacturing issue (surface was too smooth) that allowed the lug-bolts to loosen and only 3 vehicles worldwide actually had that happen.  Meanwhile, Tesla was praised as the mighty EV industry leader far superior to Toyota.  Yet, their latest offering has been plagued with quality & safety issues, guzzles electricity, and has lost its audience.  I would hope this works out to be an equalizing series of events, where the field is leveled and enthusiasts finally acknowledge who the competition really is.  We need a variety of choices, especially entry-level models... not the extreme Cybertruck turned out to be.

Compared to the commonly adopted 90 kWh capacity when that original statement was made, it's very easy to see the 90:1 ratio.

Layoffs Coming.  It is quite interesting now being on the other side of the sales boom.  End of the tax-credits made the distinction quite clear, since pressure from tariffs was already a major problem.  It just suddenly all became too much.  That's how an article with this title came along: "Layoffs Are Coming To The EV Sector.  Here's What It Means."  With NACS transition and NEVI builds just getting under way, along with a president reversing climate change efforts and endorsing big oil, it simply made no sense expecting momentum to continue.  There would either be a plateau or a drop in demand.  EV growth will continue, but at a much slower pace than planned... for everyone except Toyota, who was planning this pace all along.  I'm still amazed how many attacked Toyota for having a such a sound expection.  Turns out, some just didn't want to listen.  That reasoning made them look reckless & impulsive.  Oh well.  It's not like they didn't have plenty of opportunity to research the market.  Like enthusiasts, those automakers didn't want to acknowledge how difficult changing the status quo really is.  That requires a great deal of effort, along with some compromise.  I pointed out the problem over the years and will continue to:  The story of "The tortoise and the hare" has been playing out right before our eyes.  Years ago, the "all in" legacy automakers taunted & belittled Toyota, calling out "laggard" for taking a slower pace.  Now we see Toyota continuing on uninterrupted and the "all in" having to deal with less demand than they had planned.

Debt.  That is often brought up as Toyota's biggest problem.  Someone will sight a number and we're all supposed to be upset.  What amount of debt is too much, especially for the world's largest automaker?  During times of transition, investment tends to be the better choice.  It's risky, since it adds to debt.  But the gamble can often pay off.  Enthusiasts don't want you to realize that though.  They just portray the automaker in this manner: "Toyota is in debt and is desperate to make financial decisions that don't worsen their burdens..."  How exactly are those financial decisions being assessed as better or worse?  Remember how claims were made about Prius failing because sales were so small?  Heck, the same is now being said about bZ4X.  Since when is it a failure to produce a vehicle in low-volume with the intent of only selling a small amount?  Knowing those first-generations were used for information gathering, what's the problem?  So what if their development costs are recovered until the second-generation?  Why is short-term debt supposedly so bad?  It's not.  They just don't know how to deal with a gamble that shows potential for having been a wise decision.  I pointed that out posting:  Who has debt & desperation? We now see "all in" automakers backpedaling.  It's obvious they were too optimistic and had a subsidy dependency.  Toyota has a solid transition plan.  Their HEV design is more profitable than ICE and supports easy PHEV builds.  That will help promote BEV interest.

The Whole Market.  Who missed what?  This stirred the pot today: "I don't care if Toyota was right or not.  And let's define "right" to begin with.  Clearly they missed a huge opportunity to lead with EVs."  Not really sure what "right" was even referring to, I focused on that "lead" reference.  That isn't possible if you don't understand the market.  What are the objectives?  Delivering impression technology is not always the need.  As much as it pains enthusiasts to consider, the idea of "good enough" is often the right balance.  Perhaps that is what "right" meant.  Whatever the case, it's easy to recognize the possibility of too much of a good thing.  That's why my follow up was with regard to the market as a whole:  Leadership is not always about breaking ground.  In other words, stop focusing on the low-hanging fruit (early adopters).  Toyota's focus all along has been the masses, those simply not interested in change.  Success in that regard is undeniable.  Camry & RAV4 are already 100% hybrid.  In other words, they moved their reluctant shoppers forward.  This new collection of new Corolla will break the remaining status quo by introducing PHEV and BEV options.  True leadership means leading everyone.  In other words, Toyota isn't missing opportunity at all.  Instead, Toyota is using current market hesitation to raise their base.  What other automaker is striving to reach *ALL* of their customers like that?

Strategic Backpedaling.  This is a nice way of saying oops: "Top policymakers omitted electric vehicles from their list of strategic industries in their recent five-year development plan for 2026-2030, the industry's first exclusion in more than a decade."  Toyota saw that coming.  They didn't make grandiose promises that were questionable even then.  How could the adoption rates they were hoping for materialize?  What did they think would happen in the meantime?  Was there an expectation of a sudden infrastructure boom?  Investment from dealers certainly wasn't there.  The technology itself hadn't actually evolved to a competive level yet either.  Traditional vehicles still had several strong advantages.  We weren't ready and wouldn't be for years.  Sales would inevitably plateau.  That's a nature business reaction to the status quo being challenged.  Momentum will slow or even pause.  It doesn't mean defeat.  It simply means reaching out to a larger audience, the next phase requiring design adjustments and new marketing, takes awhile.  Change is never as fast as most hope.  Through the eyes of Toyota, the slower pace is just right.  No backpedaling if you weren't pedaling fast in the first place.

Timing.  Here we go, the long-wait "I told you so" moment... again.  When it happens, I don't post anything to gloat.  I do comment though.  This was the invite today: "Toyota Bet Right On Hybrids.  Its Timing On EVs May Pay Off Next."  Remember with Volt, it was the same thing.  When they wanted to move on, leaving their fallen dreams from GM behind, Toyota kept going and ended up delivery that dream.  They wanted a plug-in hybrid SUV.  The catch was having a sold hybrid base to leverage and patience to allow battery technology to catch up.  We're there now.  Those better batteries are being produced as a result of tweaked chemistry & components along with improved packaging.  Every little bit helps.  Typically, all that isn't possible for a very long time.  I could tell early on those enthusiasts didn't have that kind of patience.  I did.  I recognized the timing necessary and understood it's value.  That's why I used that analogy so often.  The children's story portrayed that situation well.  It does now too, another echo of the past giving us insight of what's to come.  They don't believe me.  I keep saying it anyway:  This was always a marathon, not a race.  Impatient enthusiasts not understanding leisurely mainstream shoppers was quite predictable.  Feeding the "behind" narrative doesn't work anymore with so many automakers in multiple markets backpedaling EV plans.  Tortoise and the Hare...

In The Future.  There are some who get it: "In the future the need for charging apps should be minimized and that is a good thing."  There's an obsession right now on road-trip planning.  Enthusiasts believe the apps are essential and that most owners will be proficient with their use.  That's absurd.  Being a software engineer, I can tell you after decades of observation that is not the case.  Users will end up only using a small fraction of what you create.  What part and how is usually a mystery.  But despite not taking advantage of everything it has to offer, they still like it.  That odd twist on reality always throws me.  You wouldn't expect under-utilization to be fulfilling.  They don't feel like they are missing out though.  Know your audience.  As time goes on, some will take advantage of more features.  Circumstances on what they need it for change too.  I tried pointing that out in agreement with the comment:  In the future, people will use map apps to find the nearest available charger with desired amenities... just like they do now with gas stations.  The reason planner apps get so much attention right now is due to the shortage of chargers.  Once those become abundant & convenient, concern about planning will fade.  Look at how Norway has so many stations.  It's practical to travel there even with a small battery-pack BEV.

Audience Recognition.  Antagonists give up in strange ways: "Implementing technology that 4 year old similarly priced cars have isn't pushing boundaries, it's keeping up.   Anyway, Toyota seems to think it'll work for them, so who am I to judge. I just won't be driving one any time soon."  Sometimes they simply get tired of arguing.  What they believe in has been validated by enthusiasts.  They think that means ordinary showroom shoppers will see things the same way, becoming baffled & frustrated when that doesn't actually happen.  In their mind, being newer is what makes a product competitive.  This is that low-hanging-fruit problem I keep pointing out... the audience who seeks out the latest & greatest.  When you sell to them, strong demand is confirmed... but only in that bubble.  Outside of those consumer who are easy to sell to, the market is confusing & difficult.  Will they ever get that point?  Probably not.  I keep making sure they have the opportunity:  Know your audience.  Portraying 4 year old technology as obsolete is a total mismatch with what mainstream shoppers need.  That's how enthusiasts see the market with their rose-colored glasses though.  Ordinary consumers see "4 year old" as just on the precipice of being mature enough for the masses.

Pushing Boundaries.  Why?  Enthusisast can never explain their expectations that don't align with business goals.  Tradeoffs are not part of their perspective.  More is better, as far as their concerned.  That's why we are now struggling with the diminishing returns of increased EV range.  Further does not result in more sales.  Once charging is dependable & convenient, how many miles you can squeeze out is no longer a high priority.  Think about how expensive vehicles have become.  The entire industry is struggling.  Why not promote the advantages of electricity and show that the EV range now available is enough.  Prove it rather than chase a pointless objective.  Some still don't see that: "That said, we should still expect manufacturers to push boundaries of what is possible..."  It's an acknowledgement that you supposedly posted something of value, without actually addressing it, then directing discussion back to their pointless objective.  Ugh.  It's annoying having to waste so much time on that nonsense.  I keep doing it, though:  Pushing boundaries does not always mean faster.  True leadership comes from recognition of diminishing returns and striving for balance.  In this case, charging is fast enough. The priority now should be a focus on cost reduction and faster production.

False Win.  Being proven wrong can be difficult for some to accept.  Some don't.  They simply try to pretend it never happened by changing the topic.  For example: "They're still using 400 V architecture, their charging speeds are at the low end of average in this day and age.  Even with the silicone carbide battery the range is on par with vehicles from 3 years ago with regular lithium ion pacs.  They took a shitty EV and brought it into the middle of the pack."  That's what I got when pointing out efficiency gains Toyota was able to achieve.  In fact, it was the first thing I mentioned to make sure that information would be received.  Clearly, it was by the not-so-subtle reaction.  He introduced an interesting distraction too.  No one ever provides any data on how much time the higher voltage architecture actually saves.  You can't determine worth without those numbers.  You can sight decisions based on those numbers though.  Toyota has an 800-volt system, but determined the cost/benefit ratio didn't justify moving to it.  400-volts is just fine for now, especially since Superchargers don't support anything faster anyway.  DC stations that support it aren't common yet; there's the possibility that you'll have to pay extra for the faster service too.  Again, is it worth it?  My assessment right now is "no" and I simply didn't want to take his bait.  Instead, I pointed back to the topic I had posted about while also calling out what he had done:  Evading the top listed feature of ENERGY EFFICIENCY and attempting to change the topic is the real tell.  Getting more miles from the same kWh is a very big deal.  That reduces cost of the vehicle, making it more competitive with the real competition... ICE vehicles.  The cost/benefit is so much higher than 800V, it reveals true priorities.  Bragging rights are a false win.