Updated Estimate.  With rollout of the software updated underway here, many are asking about the value for estimated range.  It never dawns on them that some parameters in that calculation may be reset back to default, that some history may not be saved in the process.  They assume more range has suddenly become available, somehow related to capacity changing.  Not being aware of the large buffer before 0 miles becoming available is rather a surprise to me.  How many times could the "zero" discussion come up and not be understood?  It has been talked about in great detail since late last year.  Toyota even addressed it directly when detail on the upcoming software update was revealed back in March.  It is now August and evidence of people not paying attention is overwhelming... which was rather easy to predict.  Know your audience.  That very reality is why I never worried about claims of a "disastrous launch".  Who exactly will remember that?  Failing to notice detail and being easily distracted by talking-points is good reason to not take naysayers seriously.  For antagonists trying to undermine, absence of substance reduces their nonsense just noise in background.  This is when real-world ownership starts to get noticed.  I try to help that process along by providing guidance as to what really matters.  In this case, it was:  The better question is, How well does the MI/KWH value match to recharges?  That's what estimate is based upon, but is more accurate since it is real-time rather than based on history.

Model T Moment.  I found the article with is title fascinating: "Ford CEO says Tesla is having a Model T moment."  The subtitle added even more to that element of uncertainty: "It's Elon Musk's 'next big test'."  This is a precipice for Tesla.  Having so much of the decision-making and representation of the automaker coming from that single individual was always risky, especially when there is no publicity department.  That business has thrived based on his vision and the willingness of followers to look the other way when investments fail to deliver.  Adding to the risk was income from selling carbon-credits and the hope of full self-driving.  Both are income that requires the market to remain status quo.  With legacy automakers pushing in other directions, finding their own means of being competitive, the pressure is building on Tesla's monopoly.  Those days of exclusivity are coming to an end.  Look no further than NACS for overwhelming evidence of that.  Here's what I contributed to the discussion on the article:  To anyone aware of basic business principles, they would have noticed Tesla's absence of diversity.  That raises a major red-flag, especially when the product feeding success targets a niche.  Continued investment in that limited audience is how you fall into the Innovator's Dilemma trap.  Refinement in the production for Model 3/Y to optimize speed & cost is specialization that could get a business into serious financial trouble... because they can no longer compete either within their own niche or in the larger audience.  We're already seeing that too. BYD is forcing Tesla to sacrifice profit-margin, which undermines the value of their own vehicles on the used market.  Making matters worse, any attempt to switch from conquest sales to something in the entry-level category could trigger an Osborne Effect.  So, regardless of how this moment is labeled, it is a critical point for Tesla.

Hundreds Available.  Reading this was very annoying: "In Norway.... Honestly - a two hours drive should not worry you and you probably passed hundreds of available chargers on your drive.  Get an app showing available chargers on your route."  How is that the slightest bit constructive for a market with no where near the infrastructure support and lacking a single DC fast-charging standard?  Here, driving 2 hours I will likely pass about a dozen... half of which would be on dealer property available for customers only.  I couldn't imagine how profoundly different the situation would be with so many more available.  That's a paradigm-shift we likely won't see until the second phase of NEVI is complete, the end of 2030.  My annoyance turned to frustration the more I thought about it.  Was he really that clueless about how the rest of the world deals with absence of places to plug in?  I pointed the dissimilarity out:  That's not how it works here.  Most areas in the United States barely have enough DC fast-charger (non-Tesla) locations to make basic travel along main corridors possible.  Just a year ago here in Minnesota, the metro area with a population of 3.5 million, had only 1 location.   That's it. Since then, only a few more have opened.  Traveling outside that bubble, there's almost nothing.  That's why the IRA bill included NEVI funding.  Keep in mind, many of the few chargers that do exist along the highway are slow & unreliable.  Norway is in no way representative of the rest of the world.  We have many, many years of infrastructure building still here.  In fact, that first round of federal money only addresses minimal investment.  The next stage won't begin until 2027.

Promises.  It is a touchy subject.  GM has an "over promise, under deliver" reputation from having failed to live up to the hype they stir.  It has happened so many times, there's no reasonable approach except handle it as a wait-and-see situation.  That's why when Toyota gets attacked... an automaker who rarely makes big promises and has repeatedly delivered more than was expected... it's quite a double-standard.  Understandably, I was annoyed to see this today: "They are serial promisors."  That quite simply isn't true.  We have indeed seen the hope of solid-state batteries being commercialized on a sliding timeline, but that is industry wide.  Many pursuing that goal for years have faced similar challenges advancing from functional-prototype to something capable of high-volume sales.  Antagonists don't want to acknowledge that though.  They need their antithesis.  Needless to say, I try to keep my replies to them short.  There's no point arguing with someone who isn't interested in critical thinking or fears getting recognized as hypocritical.  So, I just posted this as a reply:  All automakers make promises.  Some deliver.  Some don't.  From Toyota, we have seen battery innovation.  Their bi-polar design is indeed a big step forward no one else has taken... so it gets ignored. So what if it has taken extra time for solid-state?  Eventually, it will be delivered.  That's the point.  Toyota didn't give up.

What!  Huh?  Bafflement from pointing out how outdated reviews become tools for those trying to undermine was a reaction to expect.  He had no idea what I was referring to.  So, I followed up with:  Always check dates, verifying what you share is current.  More often than not, it is already outdated and you end up unknowingly feeding a narrative.  It gets worse when the post is vague.  In this case, the "it doesn't charge at that rate" becomes fodder for antagonists.  The software update rolled out in Europe got reviewed and the results tell a different story.  At 32% SOC, the observed charge-rate was 144 kW.  Think about what people assume when "that rate" is talked about.  There's far too much room for assumption.  Again, keep in mind that mainstream shoppers will develop their impression of the vehicle delivered when they start to actually shop for a new vehicle.  First impressions really don't mean much when there isn't a purchase to consider.  We saw that countless times with Prius.  This new chapter in history with bZ4X following that same path are hinting at a similar outlook.

Outdated Referrals.  It happens all the time.  Someone will make reference to something that is no longer correct.  We get stuck in discussions rehashing topics which have lost relevance as a result.  Today, two of us tried to intercept.  This was my contribution to the effort:  Outdated information & sources along with the reality that software & battery can be updated independently of the platform is a common "oversight" with online discussions.  For those who are on their game, they see that Toyota responded to initial rollout feedback already.  For those acutely aware of market change, they see that Toyota's risk of splitting battery supply was a sensible business move.  For those who are very impatient, they write off Toyota as having failed.  For those who Toyota is ultimately targeting, they couldn't care less... since they are mainstream shoppers, those who wait for "kinks to get worked out" before considering the purchase of any new technology.  It's nice to see that some priorities of ordinary consumers are finally starting to emerge from the early-adopter noise.  Not understanding what it takes to appeal to those who don't frequent online venues is a major barrier to widespread acceptance.  The reviews we have to deal with makes that even more of a challenge.

EV Platform.  The spin never ends: "Wisely toyota went back to the drawing board to build an EV platform."  Antagonists never let up.  They continue to paint a picture of failure, one that doesn't acknowledge a reality of continuous improvement... the very thing Toyota strives at.  Anywho, I combat each encounter with insight for lurkers to ponder:  That's a talking-point, spin to make people believe it wasn't the plan all along.  This is actually much like how Prius started. Toyota started with something familiar, something only modestly different to refine their technology with.  From the very beginning, there was never a plan to deliver high-volume.  That was to be the next-gen offering, a platform which leveraged what they learned from the first. It is what made Prius a runaway hit.  The fact that so many either forget or suppress that history is extraordinary.  They want the narrative of Toyota scrambling to catch up to be the story they tell for years to come.  Attempts to label acceleration of those plans that already in place are starting to look a little desperate too, since we are only now seeing mainstream interest.  Watching Tesla struggle to compete with BYD is clear evidence of an unsettled market... the first milestone of a marathon... actual competition.  So what legacy automakers do to prepare for the second milestone is just enthusiast hype.  Heck, we saw that just yesterday with GM setting up yet another "over promise, under deliver" opportunity.  Enthusiasts gobbled it up too.  Some never learn about the devil in the detail.

Remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint.

Blatant Attacks.  It happened again!  That person on a big investment publication's payroll attacked Toyota.  This time though, rather than being a contributing writer, that article was someone else's.  He just jumped into the comment section to stir trouble.  It was about Toyota's battery investment, specifically focused on upcoming solid-state intend.  I was quite annoyed to see this: "Japanese car makers misrepresent the electric vehicle world when they include HEV (entirely gasoline powered) and PHEV (largely gasoline powered)."  Knowing he is a purist, unwilling to support anything with a combustion-engine, it was basically pointless to reply to him.  I could post something for others to read though.  In fact, it I did that well, it would reveal his vastly superior attitude.  We're seeing more and more of that as detail emerges about Toyota's EV design.  Naysayers are discovering they were mistaken, having made assumptions not being proved incorrect.  Many simply disappear.  Those remaining try to pretend their antagonism and false accusations never happened.  In this instance, history wasn't necessary.  He got caught in the act of intentionally trying to spread misinformation.  To that type of troublemaker, posting blatant attacks, I call them out with a brief statement lurkers will easily be able to recognize as that.  I posted:  Claiming PHEV are "largely gasoline powered" is the misrepresentation.  Many owners drive their daily commute entirely with electricity.  A single tank of gas will last for months.

Think about what stage the industry is still in and who is currently being targeted.  There is no urgency to deliver it all on day-1.  We'll see the bulk of mainstream offerings debut in 2025. In the meantime, we'll see software updates and a spread of the tech within.  That is exactly how Toyota advanced their hybrid technology.  Why are you forcing a paradigm that this must be different?

Bolt Returns.  Backlash was intense.  GM couldn't handle the sentiment coming from Bolt owners.  They conveyed a very loud & clear message of the mistake it would be to end production of Bolt.  It is overwhelming evidence of the market wanting a small & affordable choice.  The catch is, much of the intellectual property related to Bolt is still part of LG.  Remember how the vehicle & battery design came from that Korean source, not GM.  In other words, simply ending the contract of battery supply for Bolt isn't possible.  They cannot just substitute Ultimate cells in place of the originals.  The same type of ownership/licensing was true for Voltec.  Much of that technology fell under control of China automakers due to the relationship GM had created for their own survival in that market.  In fact, that is why successors emerged there (remember that SUV prototype) but never here.  So, the announcement today was a "we plan to offer something in that category" type promise... even more vague than usual.  GM will have to start fresh, preventing any type of legal liability.  Silverado EV will eliminate all Bolt production, bringing it to an undeniable end.  Whatever comes about later referred to as "Bolt" will be entirely new.  That makes sense anyway.  If Equinox EV was to target that audience, something that wouldn't compete directly will need to be created.  Just like with Tesla, there is a very real problem of cannibalizing their own sales.  This is why we still don't see anything or there are even any plans for a Model 2.  Both GM and Tesla are focusing on new electricity-guzzlers for now... high-profit vehicles using enormous battery-packs.  Ugh!

From Sedan To Hatchback.  This was an interesting question asked today: "Would Prius have ever become as successful as it did, if it wasn't a hatchback?"  That's not the kind of topic to draw much discussion, since it doesn't accomplish anything and most people aren't well versed in the history.  At best, you get a distorted view with lots conjecture.  I was curious though.  So, I contributed:  That classic model of Prius was unusually large back then, delivering more interior space as a "compact" than my "midsize" car it replaced. It used higher quality material too.  That was a hidden gem from Toyota for those who discovered it.  I jumped on that opportunity to purchase.  When that next-gen model of Prius came along, it was the only midsized model of hatchback available it the United States.  So, it had a monopoly on that particular market.  People didn't want to admit it though, but then several automakers jumped on the opportunity.  Claims of a purchase only for the sake of "being green" was a blatant attempt by other to downplay Toyota's homerun.  By then, Toyota's effort to standardize the technology for spread across the fleet were well underway.  At the same time, owners were confirming how well though out the design really was.  That was key to Prius success, not necessarily the choice to make it a hatchback.  In fact, the same thing is playing out now with bZ4X.  Regardless of what is thought of for the initial packaging, that hardware within is getting a thorough shakeout prior to the next-gen.  Keep in mind, the game has changed.  Hitting a homerun isn't necessary anymore.  People get it.  We need to end our dependency on oil and take serious measures to reduce both carbon & smog-related emissions.  That means rolling out less exciting plug-in vehicles, configurations that don't prioritize what enthusiasts deem important.  Hits that only advance players a single base can still win the game.