Won't Last.  The reply started with: "Simply not true."  That was in reply to a claim someone made saying the battery wouldn't last 3 years if all you ever did was DC fast-charge.  It was followed by: "I used DC fast-charging to 100% almost exclusively on my Toyota/Tesla RAV4 EV for twice that long with less than 5% battery degradation."  Since I recognized the person was objective, willing to listen to decent feedback, I tried to provide some:  There is no reason to accept such a potentially misleading claim at face value.  RAV4 EV never offered DC charging.  To enable that ability, aftermarket augmentation was required.  That which would provided the ability to "fast charge" at a rate up to 45 kW, quite a bit slower than what a typical BEV owner would experience now.  In other words, that "simply not true" requires proof.  Think about sustained c-rate and how packaging has changed.  Treating this as an apples-to-apples compare isn't appropriate. Please show us supporting data.

Blatant Trolling.  4 days ago, I responded to someone in my "Oblivious" post, where their comment on a video review seemed like an effort to undermine.  Today, I got confirmation of it being that.  Nothing had changed.  She reposted the identical text.  Word for word, that very same message was submitted again on another bZ4X review.  No change whatsoever was a dead giveaway of not wanting to be objective.  You cannot just keep posting the same vague claims over and over again without eventually getting called out.  I wondered how many others were spammed the same way.  Think about the person who goes to the trouble of creating a video, having to deal with that nonsense in return.  What a pain.  They didn't expect to be confronted with what seems to be an constructive ask but lacks anything useful to work with.  It's not even an informative complaint.  There's no substance.  It only serves to mislead in a negative manner.  I pointed out the futility of such a comment, which had clearly become blatant trolling:  That is the identical text you posted on another review.  Saying "consumes a lot" and "quickly" doesn't convey any useful information.  No feedback can be provided.

Watching Inventory.  Living in the Midwest, it was quite clear the rollout approach with bZ4X would follow the same pattern as in the past for here... we wait... until both coasts get their inventory.  Complicating rollout was the recall.  Performing that repair would make progress difficult to track.  What matters is two-fold, fulfilling orders and sending out supply to stimulate demand.  That process is always slow and easy to anecdotally draw incorrect conclusions from.  Most of that is simply rhetoric not worth listening to anyway.  Since in the second year, what difference does it make?  Unfortunately, you can't tell what's what from deliveries.  There are subtle clues though.  I discovered you could use the find feature on Toyota's website to see unclaimed allocations.  I saw each of the dealers in Iowa get one bZ4X.  Some disappeared immediately.  There was no way of knowing if that was an opportunity purchase or someone on a wait-list finally getting a vehicle assignment.  For me, it didn't matter.  All I cared about was seeing that progress.  Shipments to the Midwest would be happening.  Based on the VIN, it would still be 2 to 3 months out though.  What about Minnesota?  What about mine?  I was thrilled to finally get notified.  That didn't end my quest though.  I still wanted to learn more about what plans were already in play, especially with the new CEO inevitably accelerating BEV efforts.  So, I watch the national sales websites.  You can see the count going up & down.  What's happening overall with inventory is something we won't learn until first-quarter results are revealed.  The gradual climb is undeniable though.  That's necessary if you want to attract buyers beyond enthusiasts.  Stirring interest from mainstream shoppers is difficult regardless of circumstances.  They are the type who like the hands-on experience and no wait for delivery.  Having a $7,500 enticement is helpful.  This time, that isn't available.  It will be interesting to see how things play out... especially when I have my own bZ4X.

Height Efficiency.  It gets old.  Despite being a vehicle with the specific benefit of height, that trait is not acceptable as criteria for efficiency expectations.  In fact, I see Model Y being compared on a regular basis to bZ4X, despite being 1.9 inches lower.  Someone even pushed the coefficient-of-drag numbers, claiming because they were close the resulting mi/kWh should be too.  That's not how it works.  Proximity to the ground directly impacts outcome, something not reflected in the shape of the vehicle itself.  Ugh.  Fortunately, a bit of reality got injected into that discussion today.  Hyundai revealed a system today dubbed ELC (Electronic Leveling Control) which provides the ability to automatically adjust vehicle ride height by up to 2.3 inches.  The result of such suspension changes not only makes it easier to get in & out of the vehicle, it also directly impacts efficiency.  Lowering height provides an increase in driving range.  Certain individuals will clearly won't be happy that I have such great information to support what I have saying all along.  I made sure they knew that too:  Range impact from a height difference is quite a hypocritical topic for many here.  (Watch for many off-topic posts on this thread as confirmation.)  bZ4X receives a lot of grief for supposedly not being as efficient as the "competition" even though virtually all the vehicles compared to it are notably lower.  With an 8.1 inch ground-clearance, the supposed "competition" is really a false narrative.

Road Trips.  The offensive position taken now is to attack bZ4X from the perspective of it not being a "road trip" vehicle.  They hope supporters will take a defensive position based on assumption.  Everyone has a different take on what road trips are to them.  There is a portrayal that any stop whatsoever is an inconvenience, that arrival at the final destination as quickly as possible is vital.  Everyone supposedly drives without every taking the time to enjoy the journey itself.  I enjoy those childhood memories of resting along the way, exploring what other places had to offer.  That aspect of travel has apparently been lost.  For us now, it's the trip lake country away from the cities.  Stopping along the way is a normal part of that.  In fact, we look forward to those stops.  There are some favorite locations we only visit because of those trips.  Rushing to the final destination would be missed opportunity.  And even it if wasn't, what is wrong with taking advantage of DC fast-chargers along the way.  After all, those brief charges are what enthusiasts recommend anyway.  Arguing against them now is a clear contradiction that will come back to bite them.  So, I'm pushing for that very detail for egg-in-the-face moments later when DCFC starts to become a common sight:  Portraying road trips in such a vague manner is a disservice to everyone trying to widen appeal, to make BEV reach a larger audience.  For the typical person, an assessment of "bad at road trips" almost certainly is a mischaracterization.  For example, a very common road trip here in Minnesota is to drive from the Twin Cities to somewhere up north.  With both highway corridors (94 & 35) targeted for DCFC installs, what is "bad" with a single stop along the way?  This is the classic want verses need problem.  Those who refuse to acknowledge difference use labels like "bad" without providing anything substantial to support that assessment.  Please specify the criteria you applied.

Proving Failure.  The spin many make for Toyota is to portray their effort as a means of proving failure: "Toyota trying to prove EVs are not all that good by making a poor one?"  Notice how presenting that narrative in the form of asking a question tends to give an impression of uncertainty.  Openness to feedback not confirming that narrative is harsh.  They only like what they want to hear.  When I point out that initial reaction to a debut model tends to follow a pattern that's easy to overlook, they get irritated with my lack of acceptance.  Then, I will ask a question like... Why rollout a BEV like everyone else when you can tap a market others haven't addressed?  Acknowledgement of that requires recognition that being different means direct comparison isn't appropriate.  Height is an efficiency tradeoff.  That shouldn't be a subject of debate.  It is a cold, hard fact they refuse to accept.  Ugh.  I responded to that nonsense today with:  We could say the opposite by seeing Toyota deliver a BEV with 8.1 inch (20.5 cm) ground-clearance and impressive AWD off-road ability.  So what if it doesn't follow the crowd with canned expectations.  Not everyone wants the same thing.  That's why there are 2 smaller EV in the works, a sedan for China and a crossover for Europe and the US.

First Mover.  I liked to see this perspective: "First mover advantage can really pay big dividends.  Tesla is currently working on solutions to problems that Toyota doesn't even know exist yet."  It would have served as critical thought too... if it had actually included an example.  Instead, it was just another mention without any substance.  That "just saying" nonsense is quite irritating.  If you have something to discuss, great.  If you are just wasting our time pointing out probability, get out of the way.  That type of false hope can go on for years and years.  Just look back at Volt for a detailed example.  Enthusiasts focused on a single tree for so long, they didn't even notice the rest of the forest being cut down.  They bet everything on that single choice being their salvation.  Sound familiar?  We see Tesla investing massively on Model Y, which is indeed a remarkable choice.  But to think that is the only choice necessary is irrational.  Thinking adding choices like Cybertruck & Model 2 is as well.  Notice how neither has any substance?  They are still just vague concepts, expectations built on hype.  It's why the "first mover" outlook is as much of a fallacy as the "tortoise & hare" fable.  That is in no way a guaranteed win.  Notice how the finish line is still an unknown?  How do you know when the mission is achieved?  What exactly will be the source of dividends?  Will they sustainably continue?  For that matter, how will it pay dividends and to whom?  I put it this way:  However, there is the disadvantage of barking up the wrong tree.  The first mover will pursue an problem that doesn't end up providing a useful return. 

Looking at other legacy automakers is how to set a realistic outlook.  Notice how most have nothing to leverage for phaseout.  There's basically nothing but an "all in" message to distract from what happens in the short-term.  They want everyone to focus on what they say, not what they actually do... and using Toyota as a scapegoat is the ultimate subterfuge.

Complaints.  It took awhile to figure out how to how to reply to that oblivious poster.  With comments so vague, there's little that can be done with the feedback.  It basically just wastes everyone's time and contributes to assumptions.  Here's how I finally ended up replying:  When you don't share with us what consumption you actually observed, there's nothing that can be done to help.  Extensive tests in Europe show bZ4X to be in the middle for that vehicle class, results were average.  So, if you were expecting an AWD vehicle with an 8-inch ground-clearance and 20-inch tires to deliver efficiency like a sedan, those expectations were unrealistic.  Watch the MI/KWH value.  That's the equivalent of MPG, where size of the tank has no relation to efficiency delivered.  You'll see that value climb as temperatures rise too, as we have seen from reviews in Thailand.  In other words, if you see a problem, tell us what the outcome should be for those circumstances.  Without detail, the complaint cannot be followed through.

Oblivious.  How do you describe a person who is completely unaware of the absence of information, when they convey a message but give you literally nothing to work with?  I have seen that countless times as a software engineer.  When soliciting feedback from a user of your application, they sometimes tell you about their experience but don't include any detail whatsoever.  You'd think they would recognize that oversight.  Many actually don't.  In fact, that's how some of the long-running fights online persisted.  In their mind, they sincerely believe you have been told everything relevant.  Whether they are forgetting to include that vital tidbits remains a mystery.  From this particular post today, I'll never find out: "Hi, I have tested BZ4X twice so far.  Everything about the car is great.  But it consumes a lot and the battery runs out very quickly.  Since you have a good relationship with Toyota, I would like you to forward this feedback so that the cars can be updated and the problem fixed."  That comment was in reply to a short video review from a salesperson at a dealership simply just giving a quick walkaround of the bZ4X they just had delivered.  Look familiar?  How many times in the past have a pestered people making vague comments like that?  We have absolutely no idea what "consumers a lot" of "very quickly", nor we know what the person's expectations were.  For that matter, we have no idea of what those driving circumstances were.  That post was essentially worthless.  Being oblivious to such waste is nothing new though.  Posts like that clutter & confuse messaging.  Ugh.

Guess What!  I got a mysterious series of calls without any message on the 1st of March from my salesperson.  He tried several times to get a hold of me.  The sales manager told him to stop trying, they would hold that particular bZ4X for me even without my confirmation.  They knew I would go for it, despite not being exactly what I had requested.  From the start, they knew I was that guy who was willing to wait the long wait.  My anticipation was this new month would finally bring some build information and possibly an allocation assignment.  And sure enough, mine had come... without the need to do anything special.  It would be mine... eventually.  This is how I shared that news online:  Guess what!  I just got my VIN yesterday.  The dealer was able to get a fully loaded Limited AWD, exactly like I had hoped.  Catch is, my prediction of color preference wouldn't be a match was correct.  In fact, when I put down the deposit last year, I joked about that saying he would end up offering me White bZ4X.  Sure enough, that's what I am waiting to get now.  It has been sitting in port since February 10th.  When it will finally be prepped and put on a train is anyone's guess.  But at least we know it's on the way.

Lame Excuse.  My participation on the big Prius forum dropped dramatically.  That audience is well provided for.  I'm quite pleased how well that group handles on-going Prius related discussions, including the 5th generation rollout.  There's a small bunch of us who have a reach elsewhere, but meet there to compare not.  This was such an exchange today: "Volt was collateral damage.  GM didn't cancel it.  They shut down the entire factory it was made at..."  It came from that individual who is proud to be known as a long-time troll.  He thrives on debate and will often throw out bait like that hoping for a bite.  Today, I fulfilled his wish:  That lame excuse isn't something I would have expected to hear anymore.  Enthusiasts posted that as an evade, trying to avoid the actual issue with the technology itself.  GM failed to make it efficient and failed to make it profitable.  We all know "Voltec" was expected to spread to a vehicle like Equinox from day one, back when Two-Mode plug-in prototypes were being demoed.  Starting in a small hatchback was exactly what the bankruptcy task-force expressed concern about, fearing "too little, too slowly" in terms of moving beyond the initial offering.  GM never did.  They squandered the opportunity.  The ultimate irony is Toyota followed through, continuing to advance the PHEV system as well as spread it to other vehicles... while at the same time, established a BEV system.