Priorities of buyers change too.  You cannot apply the criteria from the first 10% of market purchases and expect the same to be true for the following 40%.  Doing that is a textbook mistake; yet, many here are turning a blind-eye to that cold, hard fact.  As usual of a tool a ban can be to persuade change, absence of requirements & penalties along the way is a recipe for failure.

S-Curve.  This goes beyond not having a background in any type of business study... accounting... marketing... economics: "10% of global sales in 2022 were BEVs, up from just a few percent in 2018.  If you make it linear, 50% doesn't happen, but if you apply an S-curve you get 50%."  Just because you see an equation doesn't mean you can squeeze numbers into it.  Essentially, that was a forecast based on anecdotal observation.  That's wrong, very wrong.  Enthusiasts get hung up on engineering; so much so, they don't notice anything else of influence.  That blindness is what I went on and on about with Volt.  They simply assumed sales would explode if the technology was proven.  Ugh.  Disenchantment that follows is how the online battles become so intense.  They have no idea why the failure took place and seek out someone to blame.  Anywho, a 40% jump in only 3 years isn't realistic, period.  Here's how I explained the situation:  Change in terms of S-curve is inappropriate, since it relates to stages (activation, adoption, expansion, advocacy) in context of consumer acceptance.  That growth of sales reflects everything from innovators to laggards.  It does not address those fighting the status quo.  In other words, you are presenting the situation as if it was CRT (tube-type television & monitor) replacement, where there was little to no resistance.  Eventually upgrading to some type of flat screen would happen.  It was basically just a long, drawn out process.  We did not see industry battles to retain use of analogy displays.  They did not resist change.  Seen from another perspective, the situation is not a matter of automotive participation only.  We are dealing with resistance from oil & coal, both of which will do everything they can to interfere with consumer acceptance of plug-in vehicles.  On the political stage, we don't exactly have strong support in that regard either.  To put it succinctly, those powers outside of the automotive world will disrupt the S-curve.  An expectation of reaching "around 50% EVs by 2025" is not realistic.  We'll see strong growth, but ignoring forces trying to impede change is not wise.

Supercharger Sharing.  It has begun here in the United States.  That same shortcoming in Europe will quickly emerge as a problem here too, but I suspect it will be a lot worse.  That's the issue of cable length.  Too short means having to park in disruptive positions, like the adjacent spot... or worse sideways.  That blocks others from sharing the chargers.  That means there will be a more generalized focus instead, promoting Tesla over others... like Electrify America or EVgo... rather than actually addressing problems.  In this case, the article asking: "Will Tesla's New Supercharger Membership Hinder Rival Networks?"  But rather than stay on topic, it was immediately changed to: "Supercharger electricity is so expensive that it is cheaper to drive an efficient ICE/hybrid on the highway than an electric.  If you don't believe me try doing the arithmetic."  And of course, that trolling effort worked.  This reply to that completely derailed the discussion: "That is not true.  I have done road trips with only Supercharging and it is still half the cost of what an equivalent ICE car would have cost me."  We're back to vague arguments.  You can see history repeating.  The same old nonsense will consume online resources, exchanging opportunity for chest-pounding.  Ugh.  Enthusiasts will never get that message though.  They won't see the logistic problem of parking with regard to the bigger picture either.  We're back to the who question.  Knowing audience is vital.  How can you convey a clear message if you don't even recognize who needs to hear it?  I asked:  Not giving us any specifics to believe the claim sends a terrible message.  And what's with the Prius to "equivalent ICE" exchange?  Absence of a strong defense is an invitation for rhetoric.  Owning two Gen-2 Prius Prime and about to replace one with a BEV, on the eve of Gen-3 Prius Prime debut, puts me in the position of calling out how weak your "still half the cost" really is.  Who are you trying to convince?  As for this topic specifically, the use of "Supercharging" so generically isn't wise anymore.  Who are the rivals?  For those non-Tesla owners wanting to give a Supercharger a try, it's best to set some type of cost expectation.  They will be paying more than Tesla owners... which will help feed rhetoric.  Don't provide them with that opportunity.

Long Waits.  Here in Minnesota, we have a mandate.  That could help alleviate the long wait, at least a little bit.  Starting January 2024, automakers are required to supply plug-in inventory for selling.  I'm not sure of the rules for that provision, but the reason is obvious.... long waits confirm unfulfilled demand.  This is the very reason why some states have bZ4X available for immediate purchase and others still do not.  Colorado is a great example of that.  Despite not being anywhere near the coast, there are unsold deliveries waiting on lots.  As backward as that seems, showing favor to those states is quite sensible.  Those are states which have promotion programs in place.  Such favorable support equates to a better educated consumer base and reduced pushback.  I'm hoping to see the same here.  Currently, resistance to electrification is alive and well.  Having been able to adopt California rules was a major achievement.  We still have a long way to go, but there's clear progress taking place.  It's painfully slow though.  Waits will continue too.  But if they aren't as long, that small improvement will lead to others. 

Catch Up.  Change of leadership at the top of Toyota would inevitably bring about spin.  None of that matters, since outcome is acceleration of plans... a point that's now being recognized.  That type of acknowledgement is new.  In the past, the situation was spun as an turn-around... as if Toyota had been going in an entirely wrong direction rather than just addressing change at a slower pace.  Of course, that "slow" is really a transition plan that others lack... making it very easy to see those without will struggle to maintain their "fast" schedule.  That's how we end up with statements like this: "I'm glad Toyota finally had their "oh sh*t" moment, but it came at least three years after most other legacy automakers.  I don't want to see the company fail, but they have to move incredibly fast now to have a chance at catching up."  Naturally, that made me ask:  Catch up to what? Tell us how progress is measured. Every legacy automaker is working on their next-gen platform.  Keep in mind, this is a "tortoise & hare" situation, where the initial leader is in no way guaranteed to hold on to their leading position.  Heck, the race is really a series of competitions. In fact, winning isn't really even clearly defined.  The new platforms will reduce both production cost & time, as well as increase efficiency.

Selling Fear.  Chemistry of batteries used with plug-in vehicles has been a non-topic.  Enthusiasts simply haven't ever wanted to talk about it.  At most, we got mention of Leaf's necessary change to address degradation caused by absence of any thermal management.  This is no different than any other complex topic of the past.  Remember the hate coming from heater use?  You bring up consumption caused by that, you get attacked.  It was pitiful.  The fact that Toyota was a leader in that regard made it especially telling.  Volt enthusiasts were at the top of the hate list, knowing that Prius Prime had a clear advantage they could not defend.  So like any other desperate position, you turn to fear.  Today, the attack came from someone fighting to retain the status quo by claiming all lithium batteries are dangerous.  Using fear to sour appeal of an opponent is always telling.  In this case though, I was quite curious how such a vague statement could be defended.  So, I pointed out:  Generalizations like that can be harmful in the long-term.  NMC and NCA lithium-ion chemistries have indeed had issues of fire & safety, but that is not true for LFP.  In fact, that particular chemistry has proven far more resilient.  There are some benefits solid-state will bring, but misrepresentation is a terrible way to promote that type of battery.

Next-Generation Platform.  It's that simple.  We see many players in the industry looking forward to what should follow.  Put another way, rhetoric related to "all in" has faded.  It was absurd in the first place.  That supposed promise had no accountability and no penalties.  The goal was too far off in the distance and there was nothing to support an outlook of purity.  In short, enthusiasts recognized that 100% was unrealistic.  Sound familiar?  That's exactly what happened with Volt.  As soon as those pushing for the absolute saw problems, they looked elsewhere.  Gen-1 Volt sales were not matching hype, so Gen-2 Volt got the spotlight instead.  That pattern of ignoring what happens in the short-term is the real problem.  We already know from history how this will play out too.  Progress will be slow & cumbersome.  Some obvious opportunity will be squandered by those who think messaging is more important than actual change.  Ugh.  Fortunately, the next-generation platform development will continue.  Like Toyota, focus will be on reducing cost (in terms of both actual monetary improvement and production speed) as well efficiency... which brings us back to how progress is measured.  No one can articulate that.  Without clarity of goals, you likely aren't going to achieve full potential.  In this case, that most definitely means reaching new audiences... grow by diversity.  New platforms are a means to that end.  It means "leadership" can no longer be defined simply by appealing to those who prioritize range & speed.

Sales Growth.  Ugh.  The blind faith of Tesla fanboys is astounding.  They don't think substance is necessary.  What Elon says is taken at face value, there's no need to question any of it or seek detail.  His word is enough.  Why?  That never ceases to amaze me.  They try the same mindset on Toyota supporters, but then turn a blind-eye when substance is provided.  Merit is meaningless when it comes to propaganda.  Blah.  Oh well, I had yet another one of those instances to reply to today related to Tesla sales growth:  Gotta love how the goal posts are being moved... "Is the projected sale of 12 million Tesla vehicles in 2030 a fair estimate?"  It wasn't too long ago we were arguing how unrealistic 20 million by 2030 was.  Now with an outlook of 8 million less, that still doesn't make sense.  There simply won't be enough variety to cover market demand.  No other automaker has ever sold that many per year with so few choices.  Though, it is interesting with watch the micro-EV sales grow... something that would stand a chance in the US. Heck, VW doesn't even want to see ID.3 here.

Model 2.  This is a great example of what someone says when they have no market background and no business experience: "It would be crazy for Tesla to not give themselves the opportunity to sell expensive software like FSD throughout their fleet.  I'd be shocked if the M2 has no option for FSD. Tesla would like nothing better than to become a quasi software company like Apple.  Sell expensive hardware and then make bank on applications, ideally on a subscription basis for the recurring revenue."  Sales aren't about even spread of technology.  New features always debuted from the top and worked their way through the levels.  Luxury being first shouldn't be a surprise.  Not getting as much choice on the other end of that shouldn't be either.  Prices aren't lower from progress alone.  This is why Tesla is in a pickle.  Selling expensive vehicles is all that automaker knows.  It is how funding of new technology happened.  You leverage new opportunity... quite unlike legacy automakers squeaking by on razor-thin profits.  In fact, some of those economy vehicles of the past were sold at a loss for the sake of emission compliance.  That doesn't make sense for Tesla, who has no tailpipe emissions... which is where some money came from in the past... Tesla was able to sell carbon-credits.  Now that legacy automakers are producing their own BEV, that source of income is no longer available.  Focus has shifted to being competitive and growth.  Tesla has needed to reduce prices as a result.  That hurts income even more.  Growing will necessitate sales of smaller vehicles, which deliver less profit.  Model 2 is what people are expecting to fulfill that role.  Most enthusiasts neither understand what that means, nor have the desire to learn.  It will be a harsh reality to accept, much like when we saw Volt fall apart.  When that purity was lost, so were they.  I pointed that upcoming future by stating:  That's not how the market has operated.  You want the nicer options, you have to purchase the nicer vehicle.  They are called "entry level" for good reason.

Absurdly High, direct compare.  Watching efficiency reported by others was key prior to bZ4X rolling out.  Knowing this type of cherry-picked data would emerge later, that was a vital move for gaining proper perspective.  I pushed for that data.  It went well too.  There were several who were very open-minded.  One such owner shared his data quite willingly.  Living in Wisconsin and actually taking a road-trip that took him just miles from my home last Winter, that was very insightful.  He had an ID.4, which is a wonderful basis of comparison.  That BEV from VW was the closest approximation to what Toyota would be offering... and still is a year later.  So, I watched his videos with great interest.  Those reports were priceless.  In fact, that knowledge gained carried through to other vehicles since then.  In fact, I have stumbled across several other owners doing the same thing.  Their sharing is so informative.  It is why I can so confidently post comments like this:  Notice how this discussion started by claiming 20.8 kWh/100km (3.0 mi/kWh) was "absurdly high consumption" without any real context, only a direct compare?  Look at EPA measure for that missing context.  That rating system strives to give a better expectation of real-world efficiency without any bias. EPA rating for bZ4X Limited FWD is 30 kWh/100mi = 3.3 mi/kWh.  Taking the 10% charge-loss currently deducted for the displayed dashboard value, that's pretty much right on the money.  The more we look at it, the more we see how flawed WLTP values really are and the damage they do to giving people realistic perspective.