Re-Review.  Being called out enough times, you eventually have to acknowledge the problem.  Of course, this could have just been a big publicity stunt... which clearly worked.  The publication got worldwide attention by publishing controversial results from a test with vague information.  It was a formula for guaranteed follow up.  It came in the form of stating a supposedly new procedure: "From full to zero, and on until it stopped."  Reality was doing that is always how measuring range is performed.  Seeing it was done differently only for bZ4X was an immediate red-flag.  Why hadn't the process used countless times in the past for other BEV been used this time?  That goes way beyond mistake or oversight.  It's good reason for suspicion.  We have seen other reports in the past make controversial claims which ended up being debunked when missing vital detailed was finally obtained.  You know, evidence to prove ill intent.  In this case, we don't know if there was an effort to undermine Toyota, but the opportunity for attention exploit was undeniable when requests for detail were disregarded.  The re-review was void of data too.  All we got was another summarized outcome.  Ugh.

Kill You.  Ugh.  Some of the rhetoric goes beyond desperation.  They keep trying though.  Eventually, some argument will gain traction to become fuel for propaganda.  Here's how stuff like that starts: "Imagine pulling up to a charger and you can't charge in a snowstorm.... it could literally kill you."  Working the fear angle is common.  It normally doesn't claim death though.  They tend to emphasize inconvenience, painting a picture of being stranded for an exaggerated amount of time in some isolated location.  This claim was clearly a last ditch effort to retain attention... seeing the war being lost, even if the battle is one.  I didn't see the need to argue:  That's not how it works.  You would end up waiting in the car with the heater running to keep you warm, while the system heats up the battery to enable fast-charging.

447 KM.  That was the entire post.  He shared his driving range.  But with nothing but a number, what good was it?  I asked:  What are your driving conditions... temperature... speed... distance?  I remember the number in large print when hybrids were new.  Many were unaware of what it actually represented.  Factors influencing efficiency were unfamiliar, so pointing out scale of impact was quite a challenge.  With plug-in vehicles, it's even more difficult.

Owner Sharing.  It is extremely difficult trying to provide assurance for those awaiting delivery reading all the propaganda.  Hype from a twisted reviewed portraying Toyota's foray into BEV sales as a disaster.  People don't understand EPA ratings here.  That makes reflection upon results against WLTP basically impossible.  They will have no clue how optimistic those numbers are, that they reflect optimal conditions.  So when driving in an extreme... cold, wet, mountainous roads... you aren't going to get the same results.  Making matters worse is language & conversion confusion.  Just look at how messed up understanding is when we discussions are only in English... that's a disaster.  When a reviewer unfamiliar with the vehicle just jumps behind the wheel and doesn't even have a basis of comparison, of course results should come into question.  They don't share detail.  Owners will.  The level of information I will be sharing will be dramatically better.  Seeing content I have shared in the past should help.  But when dealing with such a large purchase, it is easy to overlook & overthink when reports are vague and conveyed through a third-party.  That leaves me with nothing but basics until I get my own bZ4X.  In the meantime, all I can do is post assurances like:  Those reports are riddled with translation & calculation issues.  I live in Minnesota, I'm very active online, and I already have an established YouTube channel.  When I get my AWD (hopefully within the next month) you'll get sharing from an actual owner perspective with lots of detail.

Dropped Recommendation.  It got pulled for Mustang Mach-E, which ironically had been given the car-of-the-year award.  This was the reasoning: "Since Consumer Reports bases its recommendations on customer surveys, at least in part, the data can change.  Many new EVs have come to market and proven quite compelling.  However, with any brand-new model, there are usually some issues, and sometimes they don't surface right away."  That is exactly why declaring winners & losers immediately upon rollout is frowned upon.  Those more difficult to evaluate aspects of ownership take awhile to get attention.  Sure, you can make fun of an immediate recall... like the hub-bolts... but all that does is temporarily divert attention to what's really important, the long-term experience.  Praise was given over and over from reviewers about how refined the ride from bZ4X already was.  That's why antagonists do everything they can to tell you what's important, forcing you to accept their online observations as the final say.  Ugh.  Thankfully, those long reviews eventually get attention.  This one for Ford wasn't expected.  But then again, focus of Mach-E was on performance... not an attribute we see loyal Toyota customers placing the highest importance on.  They want a predictable & reliable drive experience... which to enthusiasts translates to boring.  But for recommendations, that's exactly what a typical mainstream consumer will prioritize.

Sales Pitch, ordinary people.  The pivot didn't work.  His sales pitch was all over the place.  After a flurry of short responses, he ended up posting a long one.  It's was a confusing and vague message about charging.  Clearly, focus on range had failed.  Not satisfied and seeing my continued focus on ordinary people, his try at something different was encouraging... but not actually helpful:  You said "low powered DC chargers", which are extremely expensive compared to AC connections.  The oldest & slowest for DC deliver 22 kW.  Heck, even the 50 kW are being phased out in favor of 62 kW.  That left me wondering.  Responding with "...enough to recharge the car in 8 hours.  That's 20 kWh / 8 = about 2.5 kW."  was equally mystifying.  Low-end home level-2 is now considered a 40-amp 240-volt line... which delivers a sustainable 7.2 kW rate... which is precisely the amount needed in 8 hours to completely recharge the ID.4 with 58 kWh of usable capacity.  This isn't about Toyota.  You can see how VW in this market (United States) supports the same goal... a clear minimum being targeted for the masses.  That's a big deal for those living in apartments & condos.  It's what I get asked for detail about, not long-distance travel.  The same is true for multi-vehicle households too.  Ordinary people have concerns far different from enthusiasts.

Sales Pitch, pivot.  When something doesn't work for an antagonist, they try an entirely new argument.  That is almost always confirmation of having exhausted their excuse and failed to make progress.  When something doesn't work for me, I research even more intensely.  That tends to uncover to supportive evidence, further reinforcing my stance.  If I can't find anything, it's because I didn't find strong reasoning and I need to re-evaluate position.  The latter hasn't happened in a very long time.  Each step forward with electrification has leveraged the prior, a plan playing out as anticipated.  You can't make that much of an investment (career or automotive) without validation... hence sighting lessons learned.  Anywho, I was delighted to see him abruptly pivot:  For weeks, I have been posting about the 200-mile target.  Now suddenly, you bring up 40-100 mile range cars.  Interesting pivot, especially when out of the blue adding "saving the environment" and "saving money on transportation cost".  It's the same repeat of history.  Do everything to avoid stating goals.  When a solid line is draw and progress can be measured, that's how we confirm the next stage has begun.  Until then, it is still just enthusiasts exploring & exploiting opportunity.  Look at it the way GM has been struggling.  For them to move beyond early-adoption, profit must be made from sustainable sales.  That means delivering a product able to directly compete with other offerings on their own showroom floor.  If traditional vehicles continue to dominate and EVs remain a niche, progress to the next stage clearly has not be achieved.  State what the goals are to support the claimed "soccer mom" purchases.

Sales Pitch, experience.  He knows everything because he has supposedly seen & done it all already: "I don't agree with you that after almost 15 years of selling electric cars, Tesla only appeals to "early adopters".  After millions sold, we are solidly past the early adopters, like me."  That type of experience is dangerous.  My career as a software engineer for twice as long has taught me the new person's perspective is priceless.  Cherish their feedback.  They are your ally, which is especially important in a field that is ever-changing.  Anything technology related should have a diverse set of input.  That's why I say "know your audience" so often.  It is my takeaway from so much experience.  That is also why I participate in public events as much as possible, as I reiterated:  With all the public events I've been part of, thanks to our local EV owners group, I'm well aware of the perspective problem.  They don't obsess with either distance or speed.  That's the ice-breaker, but hardly the focus of discussions.  This next stage of EV shoppers are very, very different.

Sales Pitch, success.  If the early-adopter audience purchased the vehicle as fast as it could be built & delivered, those that follow will seek the same vehicle for the same price.  Why would it need to be any different.  That logic is flawed: "And yet, Tesla (and others) do just that, selling long range cars with very fast recharging, and they are wildly successful with it."  Just because a niche was successful does not mean it will be with the wider audience.  In fact, with an emerging new business, students are taught how to adapt for growth.  Expecting to produce more of the same and get the same results is basically suicide.  That's short-term success, like the gamble made each year with must-have holiday toys.  An expectation of a repeat the next year is very, very risky.  It is unlikely that the competition won't try to alter interest in some manner.  After all, they were the loser that prior holiday season.  Stepping back to look at the bigger picture put success in an entirely new perspective, something enthusiasts are unwilling to try.  I decided to reply with a longer post for that reason:  Being wildly successful selling to enthusiasts is profoundly different from selling mainstream consumers.  It is a low-hanging fruit situation you are failing to see.  Sales become exponentially more difficult when shoppers don't share the same interest.  What appeals to an early-adopter isn't what appeal to those that follow.  The situation is known as Innovator's Dilemma.  Being able to refine a product down to reach a much wider audience often requires scaling back on specifications.  A great example of this is what you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge... the ID.4 built in Tennessee.  That smaller-battery pack (58 kWh usable) is EPA estimated to deliver 209 miles... which puts you directly at odds with what VW considers a product for the masses.  Know your audience.

Sales Pitch, audience.  Here it comes, the battle of want verses needs.  As an enthusiast, his focus is want.  That's motivation for creating the group.  I have already seen several references to his Tesla though.  Why in the world is he admin for a venue featuring bZ4X/Solterra still?  I asked.  His reply was hope that Toyota would follow suit.  He expected the same path to success to be followed.  Surprised by such a shocking difference, he is now confused how that will ever work.  Several posts have already turned to doom & gloom.  Next will be to make it all about me.  You know, shoot the messenger.  I'm the one supposedly providing a sales pitch.  After all, he knows better.  Ugh.  This time, I provided an analogy:  Trying to push quick, long-distance travel simply isn't important to most mainstream consumers.  Their priorities are much different.  An analogy is you're trying to sell a computer capable of editing 4K video when all the person really wants is just tablet for basic internet access.  Know your audience.

Sales Pitch, attitude.  That pattern is obvious.  A condescending attitude: "News flash - what do you suppose the number one and number two questions that I've been asked about Electric Vehicles for the past decade?  I'll tell you.  1) How far car it go.  2) How fast can it charge."  Not liking what I had to say is the problem.  I'm supposed to agree with him and stick to the agenda.  Here's what period want, period.  It's a sales pitch... telling, no listening.  Considering need is beyond his sight, unnecessary.  That means keeping replies short.  Anything more just gets dismissed as deflection, which is exactly the what he wants to avoid actually answering the questions.  Classic avoidance is an easy pattern to recognize.  Here's what I expect to be the first of a series of short replies:  What you call deflection is what many of us call moving beyond talking points.  Sure "far" and "fast" are asked most often, but those are far from the only decision factors involved in a purchase.  There are many other priorities beside distance & fast-charging.

That repeat.  It's a blindness.  The enthusiast becomes so obsessed with some aspect of performance that they don't see anything else.  In fact, they end up perplexed why can't see the same thing.  That repeat is bizarre, the same thing manifests.  Once they proclaim "vastly superior", you're doomed.  Sure enough, that's what I'm seeing now.  Here's how I responded to the nonsense, with his comments intermixed in my post:  Again, history is repeating.  Rather than stating goals, an arbitrary set of criteria is used... a set that represents an extreme, not ordinary weekly usage... "Average charging speed: 50 kW.  Average travel speed: 75 mph (120 km/h).  AWD (CATL cells) journey: 623 miles (1003 km)."  Put it this way, most owners will likely go months between DC fast-charging sessions, may not ever take a +600 mile trip during the year, and some (like Minnesota) only have a few 70 mph highways with most 65 mph.  What good is that without ordinary usage, some type of standard as a basis of comparison?  And since when it time the most important factor?  What about cost for that charging?  "Average charging speed: 6.6 kW.  Average travel speed: 50 mph (88 km/h).  AWD (CATL cells) journey: 40 miles (64 km)."  With only the need to recharge at home with discounted AC charging, cost will be significantly lower.  With the typical commute a mix of suburb & highway (slower at points due to congestion), impact from aerodynamic drag is dramatically reduced, resulting in far better efficiency.  And of course, extra electric won't be consumed to warm the battery-pack, necessary for DC fast-charging.  In short, we need examples of what ordinary ownership will be... not an extreme.

Fastest & Farthest.  That attitude of "vastly superior" is plaguing us again.  The guy pushing that belief is relentless.  He cannot grasp the concept of not obsessing over getting the most.  It makes no sense that someone wouldn't be interested in having the absolute best.  Less is considered a failure.  This is how I decided to point out that problem, so any lurker following the discussion gets some perspective:  You are your own worst enemy, continuously feeding the anti-EV crowd by not recognizing lessons learned from the past.  Bringing up a grossly outdated article from 12 years ago was a great example of that.  We learned from GM and Nissan, with VW joining in, that setting the bar as high as you do has a negative impact.  Rather than fighting the real problem... any vehicle without a plug... you belittle those that don't meet your high standards.  As a result, the material you provide supplies propaganda against plug-in vehicles.  So what if range is short or charging is slow?  Bolt and Leaf owners got by just fine with lower specifications.  Not everyone takes long trips at high speeds and needs to get there in a hurry. In fact, that consumes more energy.  Know your audience.  The pitiful fights you engage in here are absurd outside of the American elite.  Look at EVs sales elsewhere, then consider what needs to happen for places with electricity limited for just daily activities.  The battle you're engaged in now will do nothing to win the war. In fact, it may help prolong it.