Loyalty & Reputation.  Seeing a constructive post within the usual chaos was refreshing.  It was about brand loyalty.  Sound familiar?  Amongst early offerings, we see conquest.  Other automakers will attract customers, resulting in a loss for the automaker whose loyalty was assumed.  Each is considered a "conquest" sale, a short-term victory with no guarantee of repeat business.  We have seen that a lot with both Volt models of Tesla, many of which ended badly.  Those consumers jumped ship years later, going to some other automaker instead.  It is what Toyota gambles on, focusing on what the market will be after enthusiast hype dies out.  This is how I shared insight into that business approach today:  Agree, there's no reason to sweat the small stuff.  However, Toyota's reputation has been distorted.  That's what matters in the long run, not what the noise we hear from buyers in an emerging market.  Their EV system has worked flawlessly in Prius Prime, delivering electric-only drive for 6.5 years without any issue whatsoever. That leverages 5 years of PHEV experience they gained from 2012-2017 with the first-generation model... which also worked without any issue whatsoever.  Don't overlook the variety of limited-market BEV they have delivered in the past either.  That's what naysayers don't want you to discover, how much real-world knowledge Toyota had already accumulated prior to rolling out their first worldwide BEV offering.  And what history had taught us in the past, detail of the early years isn't remembered anyway.

Baffle & Acknowledgement.  Huh?  That was the sentiment expressed.  I see it a lot.  Why would anyone purchase anything other than a Tesla Model Y.  It's absurd.  That one-size-fits-all mentality is quite common.  Enthusiasts see much in common with each other.  They don't recognize it is a niche, that mainstream consumers seek very different choices.  The idea that more is not better baffles many in that audience.  That's how this comes about: "Maybe that fact it costs as much as a Tesla model Y for less power, less range, less luxury, less space, less efficiency, and an insane charge time, yea maybe you haven't compared it to the completion that's why you don't see anything wrong with it.  But it's your money, do as you please, just don't claim that something is good, when clearly your getting the bottom line with this car."  It's an effort to provide acknowledgement, with an insult thrown in.  That chest-pounding does nothing to get ordinary consumers to choose differently.  It's an online ego problem.  Fortunately, that's easy to deal with:  It's about knowing audience.  Early buyers have very different priorities from mainstream shoppers.  When you start quantifying differences and nailing down requirements, the supposed obvious choice doesn't always check all the boxes.  I've been through this history before.  The same thing played out with both Two-Mode and Voltec.  Take a look at how those offerings turned out after enthusiast excitement faded.  Sales to ordinary consumers tend to leave sales forecasters in dismay.

Common Logic.  After a series of exchanged posts with nothing constructive in return, there was a commenter who grew angry.  After a surprisingly offensive post, I got: "I'm gonna have to back out of this conversation because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and honestly lack even common logic."  I was happy to see rude language backed off and was amused by the attempt to draw it to an end.  He didn't like my comparison of posting micro-economics information in a macro-economic discussion.  It was my confirmation that he didn't have any type of economics/accounting/advertising background to relate.  Not recognizing other aspects of product viability meant a doomed outcome.  There was simply no way to bring to his attention the fact that there are other motivations for design & configuration decisions.  That type of assumption is common.  I've had countless encounters like that in the past.  The best next move is to end with a brief post, attempting to draw attention to what had been overlooked:  The difference between approaches for short-term & long-term results is a business concept often disregarded as important in venues like this... hence recognizing the history repeat again today.  Shooting a messenger won't change the outcome.

Long Term.  I knew the day was getting off to a rough start.  An article was posted with obvious cherry-picked content.  It focused entirely on the short-term & consumer perspective.  Enthusiast obsess with that, often labeling you as a troll or anti-EV if you point out anything counter to that perspective.  They simply aren't interested in what happens to the business from selling vehicles at a loss.  They figure it is for the greater good, that sustainable profit will just magically happen.  That failed miserably for both Two-Mode and Voltec.  Neither technology stood any kind of a change of tipping in the necessary direction.  The reason why was simple, their designs favored enthusiasts.  Purchase priorities of the masses were neglected.  It was more important to deliver speed & power than to strike a balance to deliver a mass-market choice.  Oddly, Bolt attempted to do exactly that.  Problem was, it never appealed to GM's own loyal customers.  Being a choice that none would choose was a very real problem  Sustainable business does not come from conquest sales... especially when they are unprofitable.  Knowing all that, I kept my first reply on the topic brief:  That simply isn't true.  There is a narrative at play forcing people to only pay attention to certain metrics.  List them out.  Notice how Toyota scores just fine on others.  Also notice how information is skewed toward short-term and consumers.  Long-Term well being of the business is conveniently omitted.

Too Late Narrative.   I stirred the pot today with: "The "too late" narrative fell apart when NACS derailed already unrealistic timelines."  Over and over we are seeing 2025 come up as the model-year in which the upcoming standard will emerge from automakers.  That makes sense in this chicken-or-egg situation.  GM is committed to new vehicle rollout later this year.  That would put Silverado & Equinox in the "too late" category already, since they will inevitably require adapters.  But knowing an adapter is coming for soon-to-happen sales and the vehicles to follow having built-in support, focus & concern can shift to providers instead.  The major manufacturers of DC fast-chargers are indeed starting to voice their plans too.  We can expect to see the NACS plug become available in the near future.  That will help automakers & investors.  It does complicate matters for homeowners & landlords though.  Investing in J1772 becomes a mess... which is where claims of "too late" for Toyota won't stir much reaction anymore.  That tar & feather hatred falls on deaf ears now that a true impact has emerged, one not having anything to do with Toyota's approach.  In fact, it already looks like Toyota's slower rollout could be beneficial from CCS-1 fallout.  Transitions are never easy and there are always losers.  This is an example where being the leader doesn't necessarily translate to being the winner.  It will impact different automakers in different ways.  Think about how Supercharger access no longer being exclusive will impact Tesla owners.  They will have to start paying attention to availability at other providers.  Thankfully, those other providers are positioning to take advantage of that new business opportunity... which puts new pressure on Tesla to deliver new Supercharger locations even faster... a sure sign of the race taking on a whole new level of competition... invalidating past assessments of status.  Interesting twist, eh?

One-Pedal Behavior.  I have witnessed the first attitude change toward one-pedal driving.  It came from a high admired reviewer who doesn't own a BEV, but specializing in vehicles produced by the Asian market.  Like others, he conveyed the sentiment that when you lift your foot off the accelerator-pedal it should act like a brake rather than just a decelerator.  It other words, the vehicle should come to a complete stop.  The more you actually use it though, the less stopping entirely matters.  Most of the time, you are working to prevent the vehicle being motionless.  And of course, there's an aspect of forward-creep in every vehicle with an automatic transmission along with having your foot on the pedal to ensure the vehicle remains stopped.  So, it's not totally unreasonable to see Toyota focusing on what the masses will think of the feature and how they will actually use it instead.  After all, it's not like the behavior cannot be adjusted later with a software update.  Heck, that's exactly what Toyota has done twice now with showing SOC % on the dashboard.  Anywho, I was intrigued when this reviewer hinted that slowing to 3 MPH rather than stopping entirely was enough.  So, I posted a comment hoping to draw the discussion in for more commentary with:  Not sure why so many believe a "one-pedal" feature must bring the vehicle to a complete stop to be useful.  Driving my bZ4X in that mode, most of the time I simply need to slow down... like when turning a corner or approaching a roundabout.  It slows the vehicle to 3 mph, which is more than enough.  The feel is well thought out too, responding very smooth at any speed.

PHEV Narrative.  This attitude is common among hype blogs, but not so much elsewhere: "The bottom line is how many consumers will buy in to the Toyota prophecy and how many will go elsewhere for a full-on BEV to drop their dime as their daily driver?"  Unfortunately, hype is what gets the most attention... especially when you declare an antithesis, then attack it.  Think about those who purchased a Prius and never said a peep online.  Think about those who purchased a Camry hybrid or Corolla hybrid who basically went completely unnoticed.  It's the argument enthusiasts have no say in.  So, they make up their own drama online.  They know their audience.  Looking at the bigger picture or beyond the short-term is of no importance.  They exist within the world they make up.  Ugh.  That makes PHEV the enemy, with Toyota the leader to resist.  It will be fascinating to watch them battle the inevitable, that inconvenient truth about mainstream consumers not sharing priorities of enthusiasts.  Anywho, this is who I dealt with that "bottom line" claim:  The PHEV model of RAV4 has been extremely popular.  Adding more choices... Crown PHEV and Harrier/Venza PHEV, along with CH-R PHEV... has been the plan for awhile.  That's what enables phaseout for both ICE and hybrid-only models... which is what has already happened to Prius in Europe.  It sets the stage for a more plug-ins, sending a clear message of embracing battery usage.  Just like we see with what VW is striving for, there needs to be diversity.  Heck, even Tesla recognizes being a one-trick-pony with Model 3/Y only works while the market is being established.  That's why Toyota worked to spread hybrid tech across the fleet. Now the effort is to do that for PHEV, while at the same time creating BEV counterparts... like how bZ4X resembles RAV4 and how bZ5X resembles Highlander.

Big Win.  It's looking very good that NACS will become widely adopted here.  How it evolves into a standard is still a big unknown though.  SAE ratification should be part of it.  You don't want something that isn't really open to all industry players to invested in to require change later due to a shortcoming.  After all, the J1772 connector we all have is directly impacted.  If new vehicles... assumed the 2025 model year... come with that instead of the CCS1, there is a nice benefit going forward but it is not backward compatible.  People will have to deal with adapters.  That's why it needs to become a standard.  It will allow third-party manufacturers to get involved.  Who would you purchase your adapter from?  Anywho, it will be interesting to look at how the situation played out afterward with regard to how people see the change from that perspective.  From the here-and-now, there is a feeling of "big win" for market as a whole.  How it impacts those involved varies though.  There are other elements not being taken into account, things that will easily be overlooked later.  This is what I had to say about this moment, as it is happening today:  Watching Tesla dramatically cut prices and make deals to open NACS isn't making some current Tesla owners happy.  They see resale value on their vehicle drop while raising concern about sharing Superchargers with non-Tesla vehicles.  It's a risky move on Tesla's part, but such a Hail Mary play could result in a big win.

Signs Of Worry.  The message of doom & gloom is gaining momentum.  Antagonists are spinning Toyota's undeniable effort to move toward high-volume BEV production sooner as a change-of-course with much difficulty along the way.  It is an interesting confirmation that the "too late" narrative failed.  The troublemakers are expressing worry, trying to portray what online chatter is about currently provides the sign for that.  It requires the reader to no have any background in the topic or aware of Toyota history.  Belief of the story being told paints a scene for the audience.  They are not supposed to do any research or even ask questions.  That works quite well too, within that venue.  Taking that context into the real-world with practical application, it falls apart.  In this case, look at what dealers have to sell.  That very real situation of needing to continue to move inventory is a harsh reality to acknowledge.  Signs of worry emerge as the opposite of what is portrayed online.  Selling few bZ4X, but not losing money on any of the sales, is favorable over continuous losses.  Look at how Tesla is struggling with price drops.  Each has harmed used sales.  Owners are watching value of their Model 3 and Model Y plummet.  At the same time, they see the advantage of Supercharger access withering away.  Toyota focusing on long-term well being doesn't look so bad when you reflect upon that.  The idea of refining hardware & software prior to going all out is too.  By the time that new platform is rolled out, Toyota will have already proven reliability.  That's quite the opposite of what VW has done.  ID.4 came with a lot of growing pain.  Think about what that means for VW in the long run.  Anywho, this was my latest with regard to the messaging change:  e-TNGA was scheduled to be phased out around 2030, replaced with a "clean sheet" platform.  Since that original plan, the schedule was accelerated to begin in 2027.  There was no sudden discovery that a different approach would be needed.  In fact, that "course change" narrative is starting to look like signs of worry, where the competition fears Toyota will be able to deliver on the revised timeline.

No Count Data.  Ugh!  What good is an article with this title that doesn't provide any count data: "Toyota received a Tesla shock when Model Y outsold Corolla: report"  It was very suspicious to see no numbers, no links, not even an executive summary.  There was nothing.  It became evident the purpose was to attract attention.  There are many such websites.  They publish something for the sake of getting participation.  Advertisements pay their bills.  More eyes reading their pages generates that revenue, whether it is useful or not.  In this case, it definitely was not.  I was annoyed, but understand that expected many constructive exchange venues on the internet is quite unreasonable.  Most sources border on being for entertainment & bragging rather than actually having a goal of improving emissions & consumption.  Problem solving is not what enthusiasts seek.  So, I just kept the post on my observation brief, hoping there was a remote possibility someone would actually contribute something useful in response:  The article about sales never included any numbers or even a timespan.  That makes it click-bait.  Any have what the counts actually were?

Range Is Not Efficiency.  I am truly amazed how many reviewers don't understand there's a difference.  Not being aware of battery buffers or how efficiency in electric vehicles is actually measured is to be expected, but the assumption that range reflects operation of the vehicle itself is just plain wrong.  Why wouldn't they do any research?  After all, the size of a gas tank has literally nothing whatsoever to do with how well the gas-engine operates.  Of course, we've seen the same with hybrids for decades.  Assumption that MPG reflects the level of clean is just plain wrong.  True, it does reflect carbon emissions.  But the MPG from diesel matching a hybrid in no way whatsoever reflect smog-related emissions.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  So, we have to choose our battles on the topic.  I didn't bother with usable capacity information this time.  I focused entirely on the measurement of electricity consumption, using the opportunity as a teaching moment:  That still mixes up efficiency with range. Toyota uses less of the battery-capacity available for the sake of longevity. If Toyota reduced size of the buffer... like Tesla does... it would increase range. That has nothing to do with electricity consumption though, indicated by the measure of MILES PER KILOWATT. When looking at that value... mi/kWh... you'll see outcome is similar to other EVs in the same category.