MagicDock Photos.  I had to visit the first location in Minnesota offering MagicDock.  Resisting such a great opportunity was futile.  It's in a nice location for my trips up to Northern Minnesota and even better for the return home.  Timing was awesome, since I had a trip planned anyway.  Packing the camera and setting up for some video was not an inconvenience.  Travel is easier when you have choices available.  This exit along my route is where I have stopped from time to time in the past.  So, I capitalized on the it.  The experience itself was painless, as was using the new microphone I had literally just purchased on that drive.  Hope is that more MagicDock locations will become available.  But with the challenge of such a short cord, I'm not going to bet on the possibility.  In this case, I'll consider it a lucky break.  Here's a few photos from that experience...  bZ4X Photo Album 11

Now Copying.  The belief that casting was something exclusive for Tesla is absurd.  The innovation from Tesla was figuring out how to scale up that existing technology, building on a scale never attempted with a new alloy created for that specific use.  Kudos, but don't overlook the supplier of that casting machine.  It will build similar for other automakers.  That's their business.  So when something like this comes up, we need to have some perspective: "It's sad that the company which revolutionized car production is now so bereft of ideas that they are reduced to copying Tesla.  That said, Tesla are making huge advances.  Toyota are now copying..."  Not only is Toyota not copying, Toyota is also innovating elsewhere.  The efforts enthusiasts make to portray the market as a single situation scenario boggles my mind.  Who has enough business sense to recognize that doesn't make sense.  You don't put all your eggs in one basket.  That's why supposed copying isn't the whole story.  You should ask what else is being delivered.  Most participating in online discussions do not.  I end up having to point out what's been intention excluded:  Omitting the part about how the bi-polar design will deliver lower cost and greater range is important to maintain the narrative.

Growth Conundrum.  It was very easy to foresee: "As a Tesla owner, I don't like this.  I don't want to have to wait in line to charge my car."  That's the idea sinking in, when thoughts about BEV growth raise concerns about DC fast-charger use.  If Tesla is opening up NACS usage to other automakers, that means Supercharger traffic will increase.  Duh!  Making matters worse, Tesla is aggressively trying to increase production & sales.  Where exactly did existing owners think those new owners were going to plug in?  Their charging on road-trips will take place at the same locations, sharing the same chargers.  Turns out, they don't like that.  It isn't any different from unwelcome activity by new VW owners clogging up Electrify America stations, because they get a year free usage with purchase.  I pointed out the growth conundrum this way:  That is inevitable with sales of Tesla fast outpacing Supercharger installs.  You'll also face the reality of entry-level model Teslas at some point, having to recharge more often simply from having a smaller capacity.  There is also the grim reality of CyberTruck being an electricity-guzzler, requiring more time at the charger.

DCFC Courtesy.  This is an interesting topic that came up today.  How should you behave at DC fast-chargers?  Some owners will stay beyond 80%, to the point where speed has dropped so much it causes delay for others who really need the charger.  Some will choose a stall offering the fastest speed, even though slower stalls are available and their vehicle cannot charge that fast anyway.  Some won't unplug and move their vehicle out of the way after their charging has completed.  Some will park in the stall next to you, causing the transformer to reduce speed since that line is shared.  There's a variety of circumstances which can rub some owners the wrong way.  My attitude for our current market is to simply let it go.  Here's how I articulated that sentiment, which ended up getting a surprising number of likes:  Choose your battles carefully.  After years of watching level-2 spots bring ICE'd by other EVs, the suggestion is to just let it go.  At this stage, the tradeoff isn't worth it.  There are bigger problems to address still.  Owners will eventually figure out charging speed & curve.  In the meantime, we need their patronage to help with DCFC growth.

Looks Like.  The projection for Toyota is to match Tesla's current sales rate of BEV within the next 4 years.  Supposedly, that is terrible.  In a highly competitive market, how is that a bad thing?  No longer catering to early-adopters in a limited market was easy compared to the upcoming market with a large variety of choices, returning razor-thin profit without subsidy help, to an unforgiving and poorly informed audience.  This next stage will be difficult.  Some are already declaring victory for their favor and tragedy for their foes.  Ugh.  It's so bad, I don't even want to post the nonsense.  I will share my reply to today's though:  That limited view of the market serves no purpose anymore.  Consider what follows. Back in the stage of proving the technology, disregard for the larger & competitive market was fine, but it doesn't make sense anymore.  This year in the United States alone, new vehicle sales are expected to be 15 Million.  So what if Toyota's ramp up is slow?  The fact that it will give them an edge to compete is exactly what's needed for this next stage.  Bi-Polar has proven extremely successful with use in NiMH.  Many here ridiculed Toyota for not abandoning NiMH.  Now, we see their efforts with that chemistry will carry over to Lithium.  Their bi-polar design will deliver 2 goals the rest of the industry has been struggling with... greater energy-density and lower cost.  In other words, without even delivering any type of solid-state chemistry, Toyota something to compete with... LFP cells that deliver a 20% range increase over current NMC at 40% reduced cost with a DC charge time (from 10% to 80%) of 30 minutes.  Again, so what?  Focusing entirely on what happens in the near-term is turning a blind-eye to the bigger picture.

Volt, History.  There are some who absolutely refuse to believe.  For them, I keep on providing reminders of the past:  It is easy to see the EREV subterfuge, looking back.  From Spring to 2007 Spring 2010, enthusiasts of Volt pushed a "vastly superior" campaign.  May 2010, they discovered Volt would have a mechanical connection to send power from the ICE to the wheels. It was a devastating blow to their effort to promote a design different from Prius.  Then came the "Freedom Drive" event, a highly suspicious promotion that focused entirely in EV miles despite it being a 1776 mile road-trip.  HV efficiency was not revealed, despite countless requests for that data... stirring suspicion of failed objectives.  Then came the price bomb drop on late July 2010.  Volt was a mess months before rollout.

Volt, Attack.  As expected, someone became angered by my pointing out of detail contradicting what was claimed.  So, I shifted to false facts in the discussion to false facts in what was published:  The article itself is just propaganda.  This claim is patently false: "PHEVs could have a charging socket and a small battery to get power. But the wheels are driven by an IC engine."  The point of electric-only driving is presented as if it were an EREV only feature.  Many PHEV enable full drive experiences without the IC engine ever starting.  Such blatant attempts to mislead should be called out.

Volt, Failure.  Quite unwilling to let history repeat, I quickly shifted to goals.  Remember how Two-Mode morphed into Volt as the supposed path to a profitable efficiency technology?  GM simply wasn't ever able to deliver.  At least with newer problems, like Tesla's failure to achieve its own improvement criteria for 4680 cells, is delivering the product in high volume.  Volt never made it that far.  In fact, it got tangled up in a semantics argument.  I was happy to point out that history, again hoping to ensure it doesn't repeat:  Whether or not people ever choose to acknowledge that Volt was really just a PHEV, not an EREV like i3, doesn't matter.  Volt fell short in terms of efficiency, proving uncompetitive for both EV and HV modes.  That made it a very real problem for GM.  Since that was the point, GM abandoned their attempt at that technology.

Volt, EREV.  An article highlighting the different types of hybrid was shared.  Almost immediately, someone responded about how special Volt was from being the EREV type.  Yet, the person could not actually explain why.  I asked and got nothing.  So, I went on the offense:  EREV started as a marketing term, something to differentiate from PHEV.  Later when BMW delivered i3, it put Volt in a difficult position.  Fanboys got technical detail confirming they were incorrect.  But rather than acknowledge their mistake, they doubled down on misinformation.  Now all these years later, people believe those claims without question.

Honda Prologue.  Today's reveal that Honda would be rolling out a BEV next summer using GM's platform and Ultium batteries was a topic of great interest.  It started innocently with this question: "What's every ones new thoughts on the Honda Prologue EV.  Claimed range of 300 miles, charge speeds up to 150 kW..."  I found it troubling.  That type of naive is how hope turns to hype.  If GM had already delivered something to leverage, that's would be different.  But the cold, hard reality is that GM is struggling and has already missed their own deadline.  Rollout will be over a year late.  Think about what position that puts Honda in.  Their announcement is based upon vaporware.  There's no way to set any type of realistic expectation yet.  So what I think is this is just more of the same nonsense, a repeat of over 20 years of past rhetoric.  Since everyone attacks Toyota for making any type of concept reveal an expectation, how is this any different?  I pointed out:  GM's history of "over promise, under deliver" is a warning to those considering purchase.  We will almost certainly discover hope turned into hype, causing the outcome to be more of a niche than a product for the masses.  Two-Mode, Voltec-1, Voltec-2 and Bolt all exhibited the expectation & outcome.

Wealth Focus.  This speaks volumes about audience: "According to the 2020 U.S. census, the average annual American household income is $67,521 per year.  Yet the average income for an owner of a Tesla Model 3, Tesla’s lowest-priced car at a base of more than $40,000, is $133,879 per year - approximately twice that of the average American.  Such statistics suggest that the EV is still a product for the wealthy."  Enthusiasts hate facts like that, especially as EV sales in the United States approach 1%.  They want to continue focusing on their niche, portraying it as the future for everyone.  Reality is, we really don't have any entry-level BEV available.  With Bolt discontinued and being sold at a loss, there's a shortcoming that will clearly be getting worse.  Obsession with speed, power and range is the problem.  Elsewhere, there are different priorities.  That's why EV growth has been easier outside of our bubble.  We need to get over our blindness.  Plug-in vehicles that are expensive are not representative of what's necessary for change.  Identify speed, power and range goals, then accept reality when those ceilings are reached.  More is not better, especially if you cannot afford it.  Ugh.

Moore Timing.  This was an important reminder: "In truth, the price of lithium-ion batteries will be based, not on Moore's law, but on mining operations in countries outside the U.S."  Far too often, we are presented with an S-curve adoption graph claiming that is how adoption will take place.  They figure with technology improvements... an expectation we grew up with based upon Moore's law... that timing is just a matter of people driving demand and production following to much.  They don't consider supply constraints based on raw material being available.  That's an easy overlook.  Silicon wafers to make processors for our technology wasn't restrained in the same manner we see for batteries.  Producing cells carries political & environmental baggage too.  It's far more complicated than simply getting faster, smaller and less expensive computers & devices.  Enthusiasts don't want to acknowledge that though.  They have focused so much on proving the technology viable, they don't want to face another monumental barrier impeding widespread adoption.  So, they just portray the situation as a matter of just following history... dismissing the mismatch of elements at play and the complexity.  Ugh.

GM Wins!  All I can say is "Wow!"  The vehicle that won't even begin says until next summer has already been declared the winner.  That's not even "tortoise & hare" material anymore.  The race won't begin for quite a long time still.  Yet, we got an enthusiast publication declaring this: "Why GM's Chevy Equinox EV Is A Stroke Of Genius".  Reading that article was difficult.  It began with: "starting price of $30,000 and an impressive range of 300 miles".  It went on to make the claim of having a "cutting-edge electric powertrain" without explaining why.  It was all unremarkable.  Expected efficiency was missing.  Isn't the point to reduce energy consumption?  We won't achieve net-zero carbon emissions if we just switch from guzzling gas to guzzling electricity.  Even with an ultra-cheap battery... which GM keeps promising... all you get is an affordable vehicle.  Switching from one fuel to another doesn't necessarily address the problem.  Yet, pretty much every BEV review continues to focus on range.  It's that misguided nonsense, which started with a "green halo" and evolved into a confusing mess.  That's why the declaration of GM winning is just accepted at face value.  The enthusiast audience isn't considering what their change actually achieves and doesn't achieve.  You just declare yourself a winner, then celebrate.  Some things never change.

Taking Their Time.  It is comments like this that have me captivated, looking forward to the revisit of these blogs many years later: "There is no incentive for Toyota to change so they are taking their time."  These notes are written as events were playing out, when the outcome is far from obvious.  We have no clue what direction mainstream sales will actually take.  With climate-change becoming more and more difficult to deny and resource exploitation become more difficult to deny, the executives & politicians who push the market in an unsupportive direction become increasingly desperate... hence that comment.  Toyota avoiding the game and taking their time to address the truly important issues is a big deal.  Enthusiasts will never acknowledge that.  Their errors will either be buried or spun into "we told you so" comments.  The blogs record what they were actually saying back then though... hence my revisit interest.  Needless to say, I have much to say on the topic now and will obviously later too:  Watching others plunge into unprofitable sales with no guarantee that those design/configuration choices are what the masses will want to quite risky.  Adding to that the inevitably of a better chemistry coming into play at some point provides very little incentive to rush... especially knowing you're toying with the Osborne Effect.  At least with Toyota, they have a wide range of hybrids & plug-in hybrids to leverage during the upcoming BEV transition years.  Those purchases will be far more sensible than being stuck with ICE.  How will other legacy automakers deal with that period of time?  The years to come will be much more difficult to address than anyone wants to acknowledge.  The dynamics of a vehicle are far more complex than a simple S-curve adoption can depict.  Don't overlook how forgiving early adopters have been.  It's a diverse product with widely varied markets.  Toyota knows this and is trying to be realistic regarding change.

Outlook For Toyota.  This caught my interest: "Tesla has a huge lead, but would not bet against Toyota. Maybe against a few other EV manufacturers, but not Toyota."  There is a perception that each automaker must take the same path to success, that their progress will be measured from repeating those same steps as the supposed leader did.  Why?  Learning from those who tried first is an obvious benefit to those who follow.  You see what to avoid or notice a shorter path to the same objective.  It's like that from within too.  The second design will come faster and will need fewer refinements by leveraging what already took place.  That's not what the narratives want you to discover though.  They paint a picture of turmoil, a struggle to overcome the same barriers.  Goals aren't even the same.  Heck, for that matter audience isn't either.  Needless to say, be careful.  Recognize the source of outlooks.  They have inherent bias.  Anywho, enthusiasts don't care.  However, there is something to be gain by pointing that out:  It's telling how status is always portrayed in terms of struggling to make up lost ground, rather than avoiding mistakes others already made.  Being able to actually learn from them to take a better route is a legitimate option, catch up is unnecessary.  Not every automaker must follow the same steps to success.