Very Slow.  Thankfully, the arguments are becoming baseless.  Antagonists lost perspective and consequently now struggle with messaging.  This was the latest attempt: "Peak charging speed of only 150 KW, very slow.  2015 called and they want their EV back."  I haven't encountered anything that weak in quite awhile.  What ordinary consumer is going to have any perspective at all on what the market was like a decade ago?  For that matter, do they even now?  Like always, there's an audience problem.  I was all too happy to point that out too:  Who are you trying to convince?  A recent warm weather real-world test from 10% to 80% took 26 minutes.  Ordinary people take breaks every 2 hours or so of driving.  A stop to stretch, use the restroom, get something to eat/drink, and take a moment to poke on your phone takes around 20 minutes.  With kids or any type of other distraction, it will take longer.  So, there is little if anything to gain from faster on road trip for an ordinary consumer.  Insisting faster is better is yet another example of enthusiasts being their own worst enemy.  That messaging hurts the effort to reach wider audiences.

Flat Fee.  I found this question inviting: "There's talk in Washington about a "Gas Tax Holiday" - temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent per gallon federal gas tax to help families.  I'm curious where you stand on this... We need immediate relief... We need that tax for road repairs... I'm not sure if it will help."  That's such a tiny amount, how exactly will that even be noticed?  Gas prices just shot up 60 cents.  That puts it at $3.59 here, where gas tends to be rather affordable than the rest of the country.  We were told just 2 weeks ago at the State of the Union address that gas was $2.00 per gallon.  Whatever the situation, it is always the wrong solution.  Taxes don't work.  Unfortunately, flat fees don't either.  Imagine buying an cheap EV for everyday use and getting hit with a large bill despite spending so much less by using electricity instead of gas.  We really need to do things right by focusing on actual miles driven instead.  Services like Google should enable such an opt-in ability in the not-so-distant future.  That would allow you to choose whether to pay a flat fee or base cost on how much you actually drive.  In the meantime, gas has tax and EV has fees.  I pointed out the situation here:  $150 road tax for EVs in Minnesota will still be paid (annual registration fee) regardless of whether there's a federal gas tax holiday.  That is already higher than state gas tax equivalent.  There's state legislation proposed to drop it to $100 annual to be a better approximate to gas vehicles.

Compelling.  We've heard this story before: "As an EV driver I don't find these vehicles compelling."  It's the enthusiasts portraying their values as those of ordinary consumers.  In other words, they simply don't care what mainstream buyers want or need.  They only see what they find important to be the same for everyone.  It's a false belief.  It's projection.  I fired back on that nonsense today with:  Know your audience.  In this case, Toyota is targeting their own showroom shoppers.  BEV are competing directly with PHEV and HEV in the same location at the same time.  The goal is market growth, not appealing to existing EV drivers wanting class-leading features.  Though, the improved efficiency from Toyota's next-gen eAxle is delivering rather impressive mi/kWh.  Notice the range to battery-capacity ratio.

In short, money left behind isn't necessarily a bad thing.

No Glide.  My speculation was correct.  I always wondered why EV enthusiasts had such a difficult time recognizing what someone simply looking for a transition to EV with an already familiar driving behavior.  They like being able to bring their EV to a complete stop without ever having to touch the brake.  This is why when I point out the "hold" feature, none ever have any idea what I'm taking about it.  With the Toyota system, you have to briefly press the pedal to engage the brake.  You can immediately release it, hence providing the same outcome as one-pedal driving... not having to hold the pedal while you wait to go.  Using the brake pedal is that control Toyota wanted to deliver.  Ironically, not having the ability to glide is an absence of control.  You are forced to always have your foot on the accelerator to make the vehicle go.  That's a takeaway from the traditional & hybrid driving experience, loss of a familiar trait.  The fact that they dismiss it as important is rather surprising.  But then again, enthusiasts are compelled to abandon the old just for the sake of change.  That is not always a good thing... especially when you are getting the fickle & timid to adopt new technology.  That's why enthusiasts are sometimes their own worst enemy.

Extreme Hypocrisy.  They went nuts over the $5 Billion allocated for EV charger builds spread across 50 states from 2021 to 2026.  Now, they are turning a blind-eye to the "no new wars" president who's spending $1 Billion per day to for no clear purpose.  We have a leader who is doing everything possible to turn us around, abandoning progress we made to embrace the past.  That whole "back again" nonsense was a red-flag from day one.  Why would anyone what to go backward?  Whether you believe in climate change or not, emissions from vehicles contribute to smog.  How many bad-air days do we need to have before that becomes obvious?  With this stupid expense war drawing attention to our dependence on oil, how can anyone defend it being necessary to continue?  Yes, he canceled funding for wind, solar and storage projects.  That was a blatant effort to ensure dependency.  But the hypocrisy of those claiming we won't have enough electricity, yet saying those cancelation were for the better, is nuts.  They would rather cause harm than admit to making a mistake.

This reminds me of long ago when those coming from a manual transmission (for the sake of better efficiency) complained about forward-creep.  They didn't consider why such a behavior carried forward from traditional automatic to green hybrids.  Working pedals to avoid rollback became second nature for them. Know your audience.

Weight Assumption.  This was posted today, an assumption about solid-state battery efficiency: "It's 5% more energy dense, so it's lighter than previous generation batteries.  It also charges more quickly and has a longer range so that would appear to make it more efficient as well."  More dense is usually an indication of being heavier.  Elimination of liquid electrolyte will indeed bring about a weight reduction, but that has no relation to density.  That simply means a lighter material will be used instead.  Physically being able to squeeze the cell smaller is where the gain comes from.  But that very well could just cause the difference to be a wash.  Anywho, this is how I responded to that weight assumption:  How much energy you can pack into the same physical space has nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency.  That's a benefit to range only.  A more dense battery could potentially be heavier.  That would result in an efficiency penalty, not an improvement.

Not Practical.  Here we go again, an enthusiast promoting more being better.  They don't understand.  At some point, diminishing returns will become a reality.  That's when more doesn't really provide more (or any) benefit.  In this case, it's the difference of charging speed: "Megawatt may be in the future, 400kW is here now, 500kW starting to go in and almost nothing here takes advantage of it.  An average 80kWh pack could be doing 10-80% in 10 minutes instead of 30.  That's huge."  First, only taking 10 minutes means you are trapped at the vehicle, forced having to wait until it is finished before going inside, as well as having to move it out of the way before doing so.  If it takes a little longer, there's no expectation to free up the spot at the soonest possible moment.  Second, what is the rush?  When I'm on a road trip, I like to take a moment to rest between hours of driving.  Most importantly though, who will be willing to pay for premium service?  There are complaints already about high prices.  Adding to that for faster charging makes no business sense.  Anywho, this is how I replied to that out-of-touch promoting:  Not practical.  Think about supply.  Most locations simply won't have capacity available.  That level of service is very expensive too.  (Paying a higher price for a faster speed will be a tough sell.)  What will be needed is on-site storage.  That means having to include in large sodium-ion battery-banks (or some other chemistry that doesn't require heating or cooling).  We'll be at 400 kW for some time to come.  Realistically, it will take turnover of this next generation of EVs first.  That's 5 to 6 years.  Megawatt chargers will not be practical for a very long time.  So, focus on speed is a disservice for EV supports.  Improved energy-density, cold-temperature resistance, safety and cost should be what we promote.

Supposed Journalism.  Quite annoyed, I couldn't let it go.  Yet another article was published claiming comprehensive EV comparison but excluding efficiency.  How much electricity was consumed is an important data point.  It's like leaving MPG out of the ICE comparison.  Knowing how much gas the vehicle needs is a normal part of the purchase decision process.  Leaving that information out isn't supposed journalism, it's pushing narratives.  Publishers don't actually like change.  That want more of the same... which is why the same old dribble is published.  Ugh.  Thank goodness people now have more of a voice.  Owners can share their own experiences as videos, simple & informative.  Anywho, I wasn't pleased.  My comment was first, which will hopefully mean it gets more attention.  We'll see.  Here's what I posted:  What kind of comparison doesn't include efficiency info?  Missing mi/kWh data is unacceptable when, as the article states, the "goal in buying a compact EV SUV is to reduce fuel expenses".  Using less electricity makes a difference.

In this case, you still want to make sure newbies are aware of Google and ABRP and PlugShare, then confirm they understand the information being conveyed.

Paradigm Shift.  More evidence of permanent change come from this headline today: "Tesla loses Toyota and Stellantis from its EU CO2 pool, taking billions with them."  There was no need to point out the irony.  Countless enthusiasts claimed Toyota was resting on its laurels, watching Tesla race off into the distance.  Turns out, the opposite happened.  Their proclaimed leader basically gave up years ago and the evidence is now emerging.  Think about how long it took for the revised Model Y and the V4 upgrade to Superchargers to finally rollout.  Why did it take years?  Needless to say, that delay was a forfeit of opportunity.  Just like we saw with GM, time was squandered.  This is how I ended up commenting on the situation:  Not wanting to offer anything for the entry-level market meant walking away from a very large emerging audience.  At the same time, watching legacy automakers slowly develop competition for Model 3 & Y meant loss of existing revenue on 2 fronts, sales of vehicles and sales of carbon credits.  Since the money gamble on Cybertruck failed, it was time to focus on other opportunities.  After all, Tesla's original business mission was be an energy solution provider... not an automaker.  So, moving onto where there's big money, like what AI has to offer, makes sense.  Of course, it screws over loyal supporters in the process.  But the endless promises of FSD should have been a clue that producing highly competitive EVs wasn't really the ultimate goal.

Close Enough.  This was the assessment from an article yesterday on the upcoming Highlander EV comparing it to the comparable Hyundai and Kia models: "It's not setting new benchmarks for the class, but it's close enough to be a real rival."  And this was a comment posted about that assessment: "Frankly, that's all it needs to do.  Really, there aren't a lot of Toyota vehicles that are setting new benchmarks -- instead, Toyota seems to focus on "good enough" combined with good reliability.  As long as the Highlander meets those expectations, I suspect it will do just fine."  What more actually needed to be said?  That was actually very well point.  I couldn't resist adding something, of course:  Balance has been a key to Toyota's success.  That's why when those here obsessed with "class leading" traits get all worked up about Toyota supposedly lagging behind, they end up baffled by steady sales.  The other is dedication.  We will see one of Toyota's top nameplates as a BEV being produced in this market for this market... vehicle in Kentucky... batteries in Tennessee.  That's quite an endorsement for change.  It makes comparisons like this interesting.  Showroom shoppers aren't seeking the best of the best.  Simply being among the top contenders is enough to stir interest.  Then we all know what happens once you take a test drive.

Wanting sophisticated, you need to leverage third-party offerings... like ABRP or CarPlay.  This is why so many were upset with GM for not supporting that option.  Toyota does.