What Was Actually Said.  I still remember all those years ago when the attacks on Toyota from Volt enthusiasts really kicked in.  A statement was made about lithium batteries by Toyota.  Rather than actually quoting what was said and included context, they just literally made up what they wanted to hear.  It was called "spin" back then.  They would twist & distort to mislead.  Nowadays, that is referred to as a narrative.  You paint a false picture, taking advantage of assumption and presenting only data supportive of the claim.  I was blown away how bold some people were.  It got to the point where blatant lies were being posted.  Much of that has faded, but it certainly isn't dead.  The title of this article was an invitation to rekindle that fire: "Toyota chairman says people are finally seeing the reality about EVs".  As you could imagine, there were cherry-picked statements presented in third-person, not actual quotes.  The effort to keep antagonist attitude alive was quiet apparent.  That is what draws readers and stirs commenting.  Ugh.  Naturally, one of the usual troublemakers jumped on right away.  He commented: "wow, toyota still spewing nonsense. who do they think is listening?"  After quarreling with me endlessly over the years (almost 106,000 posts on the big Prius forum), he recognizes audience... but doesn't care.  He still basically just uses that value for entertainment, never quoting his references... because, he doesn't care.  Anywho, I actually responded to his nonsense:  Since enthusiasts still focus on the "EV market", why does it matter?  It was quite obvious the over-promise-under-deliver automaker would retain its reputation.  It was also obvious that foundational automaker would fall into the enthusiast trap.  At some point, reality would set in and the priorities Toyota has... rebuild from what the pandemic had taken and fortify a solid source of profit to weather the transition... while at the same time establish, then refine designs appealing to the masses.

Growing Pains.  They don't like to hear this.  Having endured that nonsense, payback is to share it with those who either contributed to it or would benefit from learning about it.  Whatever the case, it has much potential to repeat.  They never think the past will apply to them.  They believe what they pursue and the way they pursue it is different.  I point out how it is not:  The way CyberTruck is mirroring history of Volt is remarkable... and ironic, since Volt mirrored Two-Mode.  Neither ended well.  Both were highly anticipated, hyped by for years by fanboys.  But as rollout approached, things weren't adding up.  Anticipated aspects of design, that were supposed to make it stand above the competition, did not get validation.  That naturally led to cries of FUD and positions changing for offense to defense.  Then when rollout began and confirmation of falling short could not be denied, things got ugly.  Seeing NACS as a hail-mary play looks obvious now.  It was a wise gamble to show that Tesla was still a viable player even with rollout of a vehicle unable to target mainstream consumers, the audience legacy automakers still has captive.  In the end, it relegated to being a niche and Tesla is forced to finally offer something in the entry-level market... Model 2, something not subsidized to compete directly with Corolla hybrid... we can look at it as a win.  Usage of Superchargers by non-Tesla vehicles will help fund the effort.  In short, Tesla is about to experience growing pains.

Not 100%.  It is annoying to have to deal with this: "Hmmm, looks like Toyota is not 100% in on hydrogen after all.  I hope this venture succeeds, Toyota makes good vehicles."  Comments like that are bizarre, but in a way understandable.  Some people don't pay attention at all.  They hear something, then carry around that belief for years never realizing it wasn't true.  They don't check.  They assume.  That's why certain narrative persist for so long.  Needless to say, I couldn't let that one go:  They never were.  The investment they spent on making a PHEV system that could share components with BEV should have made that obvious.  Sadly, there were many who feed the narrative that Toyota was anti-EV.  Now, we are starting to see why.  This [concept electric] pickup just revealed holds a great deal of potential for attracting those who would otherwise be hesitant or skeptical.

Messed Up Priorities.  This was the title: "Electric Toyota Truck".  This is what I had to say about the rhetoric it stirred:  Tesla has many well-deserved trophies.  But when it comes to serving the masses, forget it.  Taking those amazing refinements in Model 3 and applying them to a smaller offering (Model 2) is long overdue.  In fact, it boggles the mind that markets where small cars dominate are getting flooded with Model Y.  Talking about messed up priorities.  With rollout of CyberTruck about to begin, a looooong 4 years after initial reveal, it was inevitable that Tesla fanboys would attack Toyota as a distraction from how misaligned CyberTruck is with Tesla's assumed mission of providing affordable solutions for the masses.  The fact that Toyota just revealed exactly that is quite an ironic twist.  When will Tesla realign priorities to deliver a practical pickup?  Not having learned their lesson with the idiotic bullet-proof glass, Tesla just performed another publicity stunt by showing the doors are bullet-proof.  How is that the slightest bit important for an ordinary consumer just looking for a vehicle with a large bed that can also tow?

Cornering Hypocrites.  I really got them this time.  There was a lot of arguing last week, claims that a household sharing a single charger at home was no big deal.  It was to the point where a few were quite angered by my replies.  Well now, they have to accept the precedent they set.  It's the same nonsense I dealt with from Volt enthusiasts.  Refusing to acknowledge their own claim reveals them as hypocritical.  Today, that situation came up on a discussion thread about Blazer EV pricing.  Range was highlighted as most important, following price.  This inevitable comment emerged when upcoming reviews sharing real-world data came up: "They need to give range for city and highway."  Are we really going to restart that range-equals-efficiency nonsense again?  No one actually seeking mi/kWh information sets the stage for a repeat of the same mistake.  Seeing that upcoming disaster, I attempted to intercept with:

Repeating history by focusing on the very thing that got us into this mess is not a good suggestion.  GM's obsession with traits that appeal to enthusiasts has always been a major problem.  Bolt was the first attempt to break out of that trap.  That admiration for Bolt here, despite the slow DC speed and medium range, confirms it.  Are we all really going to forget that lesson learned and fall back into the trap?

What the focus should actually be is efficiency.  Remember, that unexpected appeal is how Prius caught the attention of millions and led to the spread of that technology to a wide variety of vehicles across the entire fleet.  That success formula for hybrids is exactly what we want to do with BEV.  After all, low cost operation is what we have been promoting, right?

Think about how large of a battery-pack GM needed to use to deliver 279/293 miles of range for Blazer.  Most don't.  They turn a blind-eye to the reality that it could be an electricity-guzzler... a fact range tests will not reveal.  Notice how reviews rarely ever actually report mi/kWh observed?

It's sad that we get played like that, drawn like a moth to flame.  We cannot continue to be so gullible.  The masses want an affordable BEV to purchase that is also affordable to operate.  Not everyone has convenient overnight access to plug in.  Not needing as many electrons not only saves money, it also saves time.  Keep in mind that some owners will share a level-2 at home (or worse a level-1) for their routine charging.

Topic Change.  The mistake from that backfire was evident.  His response was a desperate attempt to change the topic: "Not referring to the range but the time it takes to do anything resembling a long distance trip.  Literally the bottom of the barrel, and it's crazy that you pay a premium for this subpar performance compared to a better equipped, more powerful Model Y."  Reactions like that are what clue me into what some actually fear.  You can only claim Toyota is so far behind for so long.  Eventually, especially for such a resourceful & innovative automaker, some will notice the tortoise catching up to the hare.  That's a rude awakening.  They know the potential for Toyota to be a juggernaut, an unstoppable force once momentum begins to build.  Needless to say, I enjoy that situation.  It makes efforts prior status of the race becoming apparent even more fun to point out.  And it was:  Replying to a post about range, even quoting it directly, then claiming that was not a reference is a sign of having been cornered.  As for the what-about attempt, Toyota is still working out how to best implement pre-conditioning.  Expending a large amount of energy simply for the sake of delivering fastest DC charging isn't top priority.  Their audience expects a balance of tradeoffs with a KISS approach.  Also, keep in mind how much of a disservice it is to the EV movement as a whole when so much attention is focused on such an infrequent event.  Long road-trips are rare and with the growth of DC fast-charging, concern about time & distance becomes even less important.

Reference Backfire.  I was amused getting this reply: "not a rocket scientist... just Bjorn's 1000km test"  I looked up the video and watched for data to confirm my claim.  Sure enough, he had observed the same results.  I figured that troublemaker who provided that reference hadn't actually watched it for detail.  He just jumped on something vague and assumed incorrectly.  I delighted... no, absolutely thrilled... to point out that mistake:  He also got 3.5 mi/kWh and stated 63 kWh as the likely total capacity available.  3.5 * 63 = 220 miles.

Real-World.  He simple didn't care.  His reply was:  "Dude, real world tests have shown that they get like 180 miles real world range."  Without sighting any references, no proof whatsoever, the expectation was to have won the debate.  Naturally, I was curious where that belief had originated.  But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.  Misleading information is plentiful during early rollout, when reviews are assumed to be representative of actual ownership.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  Owners don't repeatedly performance acceleration tests or go on long trips.  Most driving is the daily commute, running errands, and visiting local friends & family.  Heck, even "long trips" aren't actually long.  For example, a drive to the cabin... the usual weekend migration many here in Minnesota do... is just a few hour drive.  That would only involve a single DC fast-charge if you want to arrive at your destination an not be at a low charge-level.  The nonsense of supposedly wasting an obscene amount of time charging simply isn't reality.  That's what "real world" data reveals.  His supposed source was absent of any merit.  I turned it around on him, point out:  I own a bZ4X.  I know early reviews were poorly executed and did not have the software update.  Stop spreading outdated information.   Real-World results for me (AWD with 20" tires) on the highway is 3.5 mi/kWh and ordinary mixed driving is higher.  Knowing usable capacity is 65 kWh, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to confirm range.

Outright Lies.  This is what some have resorted to: "Hope Toyota has their battery issues sorted.  Can't believe they decided to enter the EV market with a car that has less than 200 miles of range."  That is an outright lie and he knows it.  Exceeding 200 miles in the summer is remarkably easy.  I routinely see over 4.0 mi/kWh on my commute.  With a 65 kWh capacity available, that works out to a range potential of 265 miles.  Even averaging just 3.0 mi/kWh, it would still deliver 200 miles.  Lower efficiency in the winter is common for all BEV, so that's not honest to misrepresent bZ4X as the only to experience range reduction.  Yet, there are those who try.  What I find compelling though is who such a comment is supposedly directed to.  How do you make an impression on someone who has already made up their mind?  Know your audience.  Most online have already made up their mind.  Most posting venues tend to end up just being an echo-chamber.  Of course, I take advantage of that by providing information someone impressionable may actually consider... critical thought... gasp:  UX300e was rolled out years ago at less than 200, but gets a range increase for 2024.  The model of bZ4X with shortest range (both estimated and confirmed real-world) is 222 miles.  The next-gen upgrade will increase that by 20%, pushing the most efficient model over 300 miles.  Your attempt to undermine falls on deaf ears.

More Nonsense.  It never ends: "Hope Toyota has their battery issues sorted.  Can't believe they decided to enter the EV market with a car that has less than 200 miles of range."  Combatting the lies of those who don't care about being dishonest isn't too bad.  Since they don't care, it's not worth trying to debate them.  I just use the opportunity to point out to everyone reading their nonsense that they were wrong, with a small personal jab at the end:  UX300e was rolled out years ago at less than 200, but gets a range increase for 2024.  The model of bZ4X with shortest range (both estimated and confirmed real-world) is 222 miles.  The next-gen upgrade will increase that by 20%, pushing the most efficient model over 300 miles.  Your attempt to undermine falls on deaf ears.

In short, Tesla is approaching a tipping point where difficult decisions must finally be made.

Distractions.  The world for enthusiasts is filled with distractions.  They love talking-points that support their narrative.  So when it came to Toyota undermining in the past, they simply brought up hydrogen.  The audience online gobbled up that distraction... exactly the outcome trolls hope for.  That's distraction is changing, now that their efforts to convince everyone that Toyota is anti-EV has fallen apart.  Hope now is the "behind" messaging can be propped up by claims of slipping time-schedules for solid-state battery delivery.  Whether that is true or not doesn't matter.  They simply want you to take the bait.  If you focus on that, you will fail to notice what else Toyota is working on... like the next big upgrade for bZ4X.  Their trolling effort is to get you to make assumptions.  In this case, you get distracted by solid-state battery updates enough to assume that what Toyota is betting the farm on.  Not coming to realize there are multiple project deliveries underway, each focusing on a different aspect of performance for batteries,, is key.  I'm all to happy to provide some specifics to stop the distractions:  More importantly are the upcoming battery cells for bZ4X, not solid-state. They will use existing chemistry but with Toyota's bi-polar design.  That will increase capacity by 20% and reduce cost by 40%.