Expectations, overlooking.  Since nothing useful came out of this discussion, I gave into the trolling.  After all, there was a connection to GM.  They just refused to see it.  So, I leveraged this post to make that point: "If you wonder why there are so much FUD about Tesla, just think that they don't spend any money on advertising and they are disrupting the standard manufacturing methods and oil industry.  Lots of players would want them to fail."  I still don't see expectations ever being set.  It's just like in the past trying to get enthusiasts to state goals.  They absolutely refused.  No accountability meant no failure.  Ironic, eh?  I posted:  You're overlooking the very aspect of this that ties Tesla to GM.  It's in that pattern which should be recognizable, having repeated so much.  Of course, repetition tends to make the obvious easy to miss.  Their own enthusiasts feed the FUD narrative.  They are their own worst enemy at times.  Far too often, their praise focuses on want rather than need.  It's an easy trap to fall into.  When someone points out the priority conflict, they get labeled as anti-Tesla or a fanboy of a legacy automaker.  Enthusiasts don't take the time to actually consider the dilemma they face.  Sure, Tesla has indeed contributed many leaps forward in automotive manufacturing.  But in the process, that created a mess for the transition.  Becoming a barrier to adoption is a paradox no supporter is willing to discuss.  They evade & distract... just like we saw with GM back when Volt was rolled out.  They was an undeniable problem of want verses needs carried over from Two-Mode made worse by not addressing it with its replacement.  Now, we see new BEV models, like Blazer, repeating that same mistake.  In short, contributions to failure are not just external.  GM bit off more than it could chew.  What should happen now?

Expectations, want vs. need.  Confirmation of the problem source was easy.  It's the same old nonsense... not understanding the difference between want and need.  Ugh.  At least there was a glimmer of recognition: "Some people are more prone to want the latest and most.  Some are asking I need this for what?"  That's progress, but ultimately the same situation in the past... too little, too slowly.  At this point though, its too difficult for most people to follow the discussion.  With so many distractions and so much effort shooting the messenger, the message itself is lost.  I simply look for history repetition.  Upon finding it, what comes next is more of a textbook exercise rather than prediction.  They won't see it.  Not being able to distinguish what is a want and what is a need means no critical thinking is taking place.  That's why it always comes down to expectations, as I try to point out:  Those words of wisdom bring us full circle.  The original target for Volt was "nicely under $30,000".  That clearly was not what GM wanted to deliver.  Volt was all about conquest sales.  In fact, that is how "know your audience" came about.  GM did not spread that technology to vehicles their own loyal customers seek.  Fast-forward to now.  We see Blazer & Equinox actually targeting those potential buyers but with price recklessly abandoned.  That's why talk of bringing back Bolt stirred, for those who don't want the latest and most.  In other words, GM is lost within their own conflicting priorities.  What should they be trying to deliver?  What should we be expecting to get?  This stop-sale makes us wonder what GM goals are now.  Some objectives & timelines will clearly need to be re-evaluated.  History tells us this won't turn out well.  The pattern repeat should be easy to recognize.

Expectations, rabbit hole.  It's easy to see the end when replies are like this: "Just following you down the rabbit hole ;)"  Posts were coming from nothing but trolls... those who find discussions entertaining and work to prevent progress.  In this case, it was an effort to keep posts off-topic.  I called out that effort, repeating the point of GM being the purpose of the thread:  Nope.  I'm not the one dropping bait. Like I pointed out before, this is history repeating.  In the case, there is a blatant effort to force the discussion elsewhere.  Not only does that fit the pattern, it also confirms GM is in greater trouble than apologists care to admit.  We're back to the OPUD problem and setting of expectations. GM got itself into another mess.  What should they do to recover?  We know infotainment is not only buggy, it isn't what people want.  Just like we saw with Prius, they want CarPlay & AndroidAuto.  We know that DC fast-charging isn't just slow, a topic we all know well, it is faulting.  When it just stops and won't resume, that's a much bigger problem.  We also have seen indications the system isn't efficient.  GM has a reputation for bandage repairs, rather than actually fixing the shortcoming.  Squeezing in more battery only makes the situation worse.  In other words, I'm calling out the rabbit-hole nonsense.  It's not me taking us off-topic.  This is supposed to be a thread about GM.

Expectations, about Toyota.  I had forgotten what the Volt enthusiasts would do when they completely ran out of excuses.  They made the discussion about Toyota.  No matter what the GM related topic was, they would switch focus to Toyota.  Not a single mention, then out of the blue they would get defensive asking why I brought up Toyota.  It was to the point of absurdity.  You could easily read through prior posts to see that I didn't.  So naturally, seeing an attempt to do the same today confirmed that audience simply didn't care.  They were trolls just looking for entertainment.  In the past, their rhetoric served as a means of obtaining information they wouldn't otherwise share.  They would get frustrated with me and accidently reveal something they were trying to conceal.  It worked out great.  I learned a number of vital facts that way.  But now, they don't have any such information.  They are trying to provoke me for the sake of winning a pointless debate.  That means time to move on.  That venue served its purpose long ago.  My response closed with: "Certain individuals simply never want to set realistic expectations.  And countless times I have pointed out... making the claim of vague utter nonsense... that true competition is on the showroom floor.  That's why GM's hope for Blazer & Equinox was got so hyped.  There was blatant resistance to addressing what really mattered.  Delay brought about excuses & downplay.  That's normal.  Enthusiasts thrive on rhetoric.  It becomes more though when a stop-sale happens.  Think about what is to come next.  Best case scenario, GM would have a long backlog of orders to fill.  That equates selling lots & lots of guzzlers in the meantime.  What kind of transition plan was that?  Instead, there is now the same backlash feed we saw in the past from GM.  Something goes wrong with their rollout and the entire industry takes a hit... in large part due to the "over promise, under deliver" problem.

Expectations, word salad.  The response was quite predictable: "please pass the 1,000 island dressing for that word salad.  me no speak mumbo jumbo-ese.  i think you deliberately respond that way so no one can give a correction to wrong thinking."  To him, the effort is to win the argument.  I was wrong, period.  That's what happened for an entire decade with Volt.  Enthusiasts absolutely refused to see the bigger picture.  It was all about winning battles, not the war itself.  Shooting the messenger is a dead giveaway they have nothing constructive to contribute.  Those attacks were pointless... like beating a dead horse.  Yet, they would pound their chest and make excuses anyway.  That's what happens when hope turns into hype.  The same thing happened here, in a discussion about Chevy Blazer EV sales being stopped.  GM was advertising Equinox EV delivery for the Spring of 2023.  Now, it is delayed until Fall of 2024 with it's predecessor already struggling.  I'm intrigued where the posting will go from here:  Don't like the answer, declare it a word salad...  Here's that same sentiment, as Google states it: "a particular effort is futile, being a waste of time without a positive outcome".  That's been the point of "over promise, under deliver" since the very beginning.  GM sets unrealistic goals, we call out what realistic expectations should be.  Distractions don't contribute to that.

Expectations, dead horse.  He clearly didn't make an effort to see that bigger picture.  Falling back on talking-points... like "wheels falling off" ... is a sign that discussion will not be constructive.  Setting of expectations is nearly impossible with certain people.  When you try, it ends  up like this: "isn't that what i just said?  whether ev or ice - each new product seems to need to have the bugs shaking out?  Please elaborate on whatever false narrative you are construing."  It makes no sense to bring up what-abouts.  Yet, he did anyway in the first post and what followed in this one.  They do nothing to help with the look forward.  What is realistic.  I tried to get him to overcome the hang-up with this answer:  Really?  I learned that lesson back in high school... many decades ago.  You don't draw attention to ordinary outcomes.  Those things that are easily solved and won't ever happen again are a waste of resources to dwell on.  Focus on what will actually provide a gain.  The common way of referring to this situation is "beating a dead horse".

Expectations, growing pains.  Pointing out that "even gasser have gone through growing pains" isn't actually helpful when you start the post with: "Blazer by GM is like many other ev startups.  Big learning curves.  Gen 1 tesla Roadster?  Batteries would brick. Toyota's bz?  Wheels prone to fall off..."  That came from an apologist, someone who goes through great pains to avoid addressing history.  His denial is exactly like I saw with Volt; so much so, it's like he's following a script from the past.  Anywho, I find the distraction evidence of an absence of critical thinking.  So, I replied to that with:  It's quite remarkable how enthusiasts can be their own worst enemy.  Absolutely refusing to acknowledge when history repeats is bad enough, but there's no excuse for knowingly feeding a false narrative.  The switch to hub-bolts had nothing whatsoever to do with the EV propulsion system.  Contributing to FUD hurts everyone.  Manufacturing errors/defects happen with all vehicle types.

Detail, Not Context.  There was a post about slow DC charging.  I posted a reply wondering why "risk" was used to describe the behavior.  This is what I got: "Enough with the slow for longevity talk."  Having nothing whatsoever to do with longevity, I asked why he brought that up.  This was the response: "Whenever someone mentions slow charging, you always bring up something on the lines of "be thankful Toyota cares about longevity and reliability". "  Since I had already mentioned using a route-planner, it was an invitation to make it overwhelmingly clear he had made an incorrect assumption and why it was wrong.  I posted:  Read for detail, not context.  For quite some time, I have been discussing Toyota's choice of 95°F (35°C) as an upper threshold for battery longevity when heating the pack for DC fast-charging. At that temperature, we have seen very acceptable results. But without the upcoming software update, use of the battery-heater for speed is limited to when you are drawing DC power when plugged in.  Being able to use power from the pack itself is what will change, enabled pre-condition opportunity.  What you are clearly not seeing is when I mention Tesla, how its heating target is 122°F (50°C).  Not only does that work the battery harder, it consumes more energy both for heating up and the necessary cooling that follows.

Expectations, legal entanglements.  Here we go: "GM announced the Ultium in 2018 when it killed the Volt, and presumably had been working on it for some time before that.  First year of sales or no there is very little excuse for this.  And I say that as a person who had high hopes for the GM EV line."  My revisionist-history alert sounded off immediately... since there was no mention of Bolt.  Talking about excluding a major part of history.  Bolt was introduced when Volt was declared discontinued, softening the disappointment by providing a distraction.  Supposedly, it represented a step forward... GM saw the step of PHEV no longer necessary.  In reality, there were hidden barriers.  It wasn't just the struggle to become profitable and efficiency shortcomings.  GM's bankruptcy recovery included some investment by China's automotive industry.  They held a 50% ownership stake in that market, but far more when it came to the technology itself.  That is how successors to Volt actually rolled out there, but we barely even heard mention of their existence there.  Knowing most enthusiasts are completely unaware of such information, I kept the situation simple by providing some basics.  There's no way to have a constructive discussion about expectations without that type of background.  I asked:  How much could actually be carried over?  Since so much intellectual property and production capability was owned by SAIC and LG, it would have been sensible to start fresh to avoid legal entanglements.

Christmas Surprise.  I found myself with some time to spare, prior to the holiday festivities beginning.  So, I did a little random online searching.  That led me to follow up on the fallout a year ago, when bZ4X first rolled out.  Remember reports of those very first drives?  Procedures weren't consistent, leading to incorrect representation.  Measurements weren't even being used in a helpful manner.  It was a confusing mess.  Thankfully, much has happened since then.  Ironically, it was Toyota who shook up the industry... just like decades ago.  Needless to say, I was thrilled to find more of that with new subject matter.  The title of the article published yesterday in Norway was: "Long awaited upgrade for Toyota bZ4X".  It's always intriguing to see what is perceived to be fallout.  Toyota said they won't be selling many the first few years.  Antagonists spin that as a bad thing, a failure.  Reporters do the same.  Journalists don't though.  The see opportunity in long-term endeavors.  Having this big set of updates take a year seems like an eternity for enthusiast, but is actually decent turn-around for large efforts.  It's the agile approach Toyota always takes.  Heck, that's way is still faster than VW has been able to deliver.  Anywho, the subtext was rather ambiguous: "IMPROVED: During the winter, Toyota bZ4X will receive upgrades so large that they had to be planned into production."  I'm not sure what that truly means.  Following a rollout schedule makes sense.  When the 2024 begins distribution, the 2023 could start getting updates.  That would be a sensible way of avoiding that problem of the past with obsolete information being treated as current.  Everyone getting the upgrade at the same time would be a good plan.  We'll see.  I'm somewhat annoyed about having to wait to find out more.  The article itself is behind a paywall and the only means of accessing it is a subscription to a European media service and payment is in NOK rather than Euros.  I really don't want to have to mess with that, especially since all the webpage text must be translated.  So, I guess this is yet another test of patience... though, still a nice Christmas surprise.

Distraction, fixed & blamed.  This is what stirred up in the discussion: "Toyota fixed it.  Tesla blamed the customer for it."  Reading commentary like that is always interesting, since apologist response serves as an indicator of market status.  Not resulted in any type of defense is the expectation now.  In the past, there would have been a flurry of excuses & diversions.  Now, we all know Tesla has a number of issues.  The fact that GM does now too isn't what I had expected.  I figured rollout of Blazer would be a bunch of reviews avoiding the obvious... it being an electricity-guzzler (mi/kWh clearly lower than bZ4X) that charges at a hypocritical speed (the same as bZ4X post software update).  That would mean focus would be on range & power.  Ugh.  Instead, the stop-sale brought it all to an abrupt rethink.  I wonder what will happen next.  I can't imagine enthusiasts being constructive.  Setting realistic expectations is basically impossible... which is why they are directing attention elsewhere.  I replied to that with:  Wheels weren't actually falling off.  So the fact that Toyota responded quickly and provided customers an option (buyback or paid loaner with inconvenience compensation) says a lot about the ownership experience.  Remember what happened with the first Lexus?  If GM strives to make it right, kudos to them.  They can make the best out of a bad situation.

Distraction, fumble & apologies.  It was only a matter of time before this was posted: "Who would have thought that GM would fumble, with all the GM apologists around here, with a few exceptions."  That was the result of a stop-sale being issued for Blazer EV.  So far, reaction has been quite predictable.  I jumped into that with:  It was the over promise, under deliver problem right from the beginning.  In other words, that warning of too-good-to-be-true wasn't taken seriously.  Sure, their Ultium design could indeed overcome a challenge of the past.  But for it to overcome so many barriers all at once.  Seeing things from the continuous improvement perspective, that approach simply didn't make any sense.  Expectations were set far too high, especially for such an unforgiving audience.  With both Volt & Bolt targeting enthusiasts, shortcomings could be addressed.  For an ordinary Chevy like Blazer or Equinox, the mainstream buyer is going to expect all the bugs to already be worked out.  Some people never learn from history.  Toyota leveraged Prius for working out details prior to making the hybrid system available to Highlander & Camry.  Following that came their very high-volume sellers, RAV4 & Corolla.  They are doing the same now with bZ4X, leveraging the EV system from the Primes initially.  Next will follow that same gain-experience approach, rollout of bZ5X. Betting the farm on Ultium so long ago was a necessary gamble.  We know that most of the intellectual property for Volt was controlled by SAIC in China and for Bolt was LG in Korea.  That meant never truly having flexibility and being profit challenged.  GM had no choice but to essentially start over... hence the fumble & apologies were seeing now.