35 to 30 = 8.5%
30 to 25 = 16.7%
25 to 20 = 20%
20 to 15 = 25%
15 to 10 = 33.3%
10 to 5 = 50%

In other words, that faster charging likely only providing a small improvement... so small, it might not make any difference... unless you are paying a premium for the faster rate.  Also, would a reduction from 15 minutes to 10 minutes really matter if your stop includes eating something, buying something, or using the restroom?

Offensive Posts.  When they are personal, you have to let the moderators deal with them.  That actually happened twice recently for me.  In the one case, I was getting harassed.  It was obvious too.  Turns out, there's a special feature on the forum for that.  The moderators can set an automatic delete.  So no matter what is posted in reply to me from that person, no one else can see it.  The person getting harassed still can though.  Another option is removal.  A moderator noticed I was getting repeatedly attacked without any type of provocation.  The guy didn't stop, so he got banned.  Anyone, when the offensive posts are not personal, you're on your own to address them.  Today, it was someone attacking Toyota with surprisingly inappropriate "bi-polar" references.  So, I stepped in to turn what he expected to be a defensive reply as offense of my own:  Speaking of bashing & deliberate, making fun of *bi-polar* like that is a dead giveaway that you fear it.  Toyota has delivered something truly innovative.  Their bi-polar packaging of batteries reduces cost & weight while improving efficiency.  It has worked so well with their hybrids, that same approach will be taken advantage of for their BEV.  That gives them a true advantage over everyone else.  In fact, VW has taken notice and is now pursuing a similar type of advancement for their own use.

It's a bitter reality that the process will take a lot longer than enthusiast optimism portrays.  Whether or not others accept the words of market experience from Toyota won't change that inconvenient truth.

Notice How.  Role of the antagonist is to put words in your mouth, implying you said something you clearly did not... like: "You're saying that part of their approach was to release bad cars?"  That comes from impatience and unwillingness to acknowledge want verses need.  It's the same old nonsense we have seen for decades.  Except now, I have that history to refer back to.  When that fails to shut them up, I direct the discussion into a forward direction.  That has become really easy as of recent too:  Their focus was to refine the technology prior to going all out... exactly like they did with Prius.  Notice how despite being a SUV with 8-inch ground-clearance, efficiency (mi/kWh) is competitive?  Notice how the software of EV drive has been issue free?  Notice how the 2024 model got a battery-heater upgrade and there's another upgrade scheduled for the 2025 model?  Notice how a smaller BEV is being rolled out this year and a larger BEV next year?

Deaf Ears.  This never gets old: "The bZ4X is a mediocre car, and the Lexus EVs are similarly below standards."  Enthusiasts obsess with more.  They think that's what everyone wants.  They don't understand others don't share their priorities.  Remember that same nonsense in the days of Volt?  Almost all of that group was dead set against a "lite" model.  Their fear was loss of interest, that somehow is less power with less range would dilute the brand.  It's what separated supporters from enthusiasts.  That latter didn't take growth seriously.  Diversification was not an option to consider.  It was all about purity and pushing for more.  Sound familiar?  We have the same thing going now.  Some never learn.  Repeating the same mistakes... history repeats.  Ugh.  Oh well.  They don't have much of an audience anyway.  I was happy to point that out too:  Who are you trying to convince?  Toyota's approach is to refine their technology prior to rolling out to the masses.  That means whining about range & speed from enthusiasts falls on deaf ears.  As they did with Prius, a mainstream offering is planned for gen-2.  The impatience & short-sightedness from those unwilling to acknowledge the entire industry is in the "teething" stage is of no loss to Toyota.  Think about what ordinary consumers will find important when shopping for a BEV.

It's An Asset.  Antagonists absolutely love pointing out that Toyota carries more debt than any other automaker.  Being such a common talking-point, no one ever questions what that it really means.  Since liability is implied, that hoped for assumption never gets challenged... until today!  Arguing seemed pointless.  How do you combat such messaging?  Turns out, there is a simple way to do exactly that.  Point out that a large chunk of the money owed is actually already accounted for.  It is loans from customers.  That isn't a liability.  It is an asset.  That's a good thing.  Digging into hadn't crossed my mind.  I even made the assumption it was due to long-term investments or some type of fallout from dealing with the pandemic.  The fact that it is due to record sales, contributing to a liquidity shortcoming is not a problem.  Those purchases are paying the bills, keeping money flowing.  Not everything on the books as outstanding is bad.  I need to remember to remind people of that... especially the troublemakers.  It this case, my reply to that revelation was:  Most the companies with the most debt are automakers, because they have finance departments that make auto loans.  Which barring an economic crisis causing mass defaults, is an asset, not a liability.

Distorted Meaning.  There has been a lot more ugh statements lately: "Toyota may be correct when they say the world will be selling 30% EVs in 2030.  But I don't like the way they say it."  The nonsense never ends.  Problems come up every time something is said... because the actual words are not included in articles & posts.  It's just hearsay being passed around, feeding rhetoric.  What amazes me is how gullible people are.  The very next day, what was said is distorted to such an degree it becomes difficult to untangle the mess.  You cannot figure out who contributed to the twisting of words.  Sources are not included and references are vague at best.  I have to struggled every time to find the quote.  In this case, some of the context was actually included.  Making a comment about the sentiment means there was some critical thinking.  That is refreshing to see.  Unfortunately, it doesn't help... since those who read it didn't understand or even try to explore what it meant.  Basically, we still just get talking-points.  So, I did my best to draw attention to the words used.  Sadly, that will likely go totally unnoticed.  At least I tried:  They didn't actually say what most of the media implied.  The actual quote was: "Wasted investment is worse than the credit purchase."  It was a reference to spending beyond projected sales, which could result in greater losses.  Many online distorted "waste" to mean Toyota wasn't going to invest in EVs at all.

Credit Money.  Ugh.  Sometimes people argue over things they are clueless about.  This was a great example: "And this is the whole point of the so-called "Climate Change" agenda.  That "credit" money goes to... the very same pockets of those pushing threats of climate change."  That was a claim that sales of carbon credits somehow being a money-making scam for those creating emission regulations.  Huh?  That doesn't make any sense.  Sure, if there was a fine EPA would collect.  But the entire point of the credit system was to prevent that.  It was designed for those within the industry to help out each other.  Those who exceeded the mandate could benefit by selling the extra credits they earned to those who were struggling.  I don't see how intent or outcome could be misunderstood.  That's why my reply was:  So... Tesla is the enemy?  That's who gets money.  They sell their own credits.  In fact, that has been a major source of revenue for Tesla since their very beginning.  Funds for projects have come from that.  Assuming the government somehow benefits is incorrect.  The credit system is for automakers to benefit from each other.  Those who fall short will buy credits from those who exceed quotas.

Bigger Picture.  Some simply never see the bigger picture because they were never looking.  Others are too preoccupied with their own motives, dismissing the possibility of another purpose.  In this case, it was the discussion about why certain Tesla Supercharger locations clearly capable of supporting NACS are not.  For me, it's the one on the way up north.  The distance is exactly halfway between the to major cities (St. Cloud, MN and Baxter/Brainerd, MN).  Since it just opened last fall and the chargers are 250 kW capable, it seems odd for them to have been excluded.  Others are noticing the same thing in their area.  One of the conjectures was: "I wonder what stops them from being available, maybe the congestion?"  That got me thinking.  I pointed out another possibility:  I'm hanging on the likelihood of it being higher probability of non-Tesla use, making those locations better candidates for getting V4 upgrades sooner.  It makes sense to see Tesla positioning for the next round of NEVI funding, especially if those locations are phase-2 highway corridors.  Keep in mind that the current business model is to lease land and supply equipment.  The next stage in Tesla's master plan could be to offer those established locations for purchase to the lessor... who would be eligible for NEVI funding.  Tesla would then become the service provider, collecting fees for each connection and providing contracted maintenance.  Remember, Tesla's business objective is to be an energy provider.  The fact that most people think of Tesla as just an automaker prevents them from seeing that bigger picture.

Not Kodak.  This was so well thought out, and a new discussion thread so in your face on the big Electric Vehicles group, I need to share the entire comment starting it: "Turns out they aren't the next Kodak.  There are a lot of problems with Toyota, but they aren't sitting on their hands.  People predicting their demise for years \ comparing them to Kodak show they don't know anything about Toyota (or Kodak).  The vitriol focused against this one company could be rooted in many things (some mildly valid -like their hydrogen cheerleading), but the ugliest are FUD \ short selling and not so mild xenophobia \ racism.  The company that got the world to accept hybrids hasn't become the largest auto manufacturer by being dumb.  If they can be encouraged to continue investing in promising tech like solid state batteries, then they can be a huge force for good."  It sure was refreshing to read that.  So many times, there would be dismissal or downplay.  I persisted though.  With so much history on my side, giving in to their nonsense by taking the bait would have been such a waste.  This is how I contributed:  One of the biggest uses of the "Kodak" narrative is to portray Toyota as an antithesis to draw attention away from BEV adoption challenges.  Having owned 3 different plug-in vehicles myself over the past 12 years, I'm well aware of how enthusiasts dodge certain issues by diverting discussions with "kicking & screaming" claims for Toyota.  It has been really disheartening to watch them evade like that.  We have serious infrastructure shortcomings and almost a complete absence of plug-in education.  So little was done over the past decade to overcome misinformation & assumptions... opportunity lost from those spreading rhetoric.

Pull-Thru Chargers.  I was delighted to see this in the discussion about cable concerns (parking challenges due to how short the cords are) at Tesla Superchargers: "The long term solution to this is islands with pull thru parking just like at gas pumps.  Pull-thru serves any vehicle including while towing and any side of the vehicle by reversing direction/alternating sides.  This configuration also supports solar and weather coverage if desired.  Why re-invent the wheel."  Seeing the voice of reason like that is wonderfully refreshing.  I was elated to reply to that with:  It's quite obvious some new gas stations are already planning ahead. There's one nearby (CircleK, aka "Holiday" here in Minnesota) that is scheduled for DCFC installs this year.  When looking at their lot, the vast area of empty pavement looks like such a massive waste... until you realize the parent company is well established in Europe and is well aware of the value of pull-thru chargers.  It will be exciting to see that location ruffle the feathers other DCFC providers here, like Electrify America and Tesla Superchargers, where all of them here lease parking lot space... which forces users into tight ordinary parking spots.

Park Renovation, taxes.  To my surprise, he fired back: "I'd much rather not pay for the infrastructure on taxpayer dime, for you to charge your car."  That narrow-mindedness is always an interesting trap to watch someone step into.  Every year, our band rents a shelter for a summer picnic.  I know all too well that facilities available are taken into account.  Think about the future when someone would like to attend but there is concern about having enough range remaining to make the trip home.  Having chargers an expectation for recreational areas will be a plus.  It simply makes sense to keep appeal traits current.  Why not adapt to society need & want... especially when it comes to parks?  It seems absurd that a location promoting the enjoyment of nature wouldn't address climate-change.  Yet, we have a self-professed gas-guzzler resisting the idea of looking forward.  Blah.  Oh well, that gives me more time standing on the soapbox... which is exactly what I continued to do:  Not making our parks competitive with others is not a priority?  Loss of appeal is loss of taxes collected.  People make purchases nearby and sometimes at the park itself for food.  Notice the picnic tables?  btw, at Cleary Lake you can rent kayaks and paddle-boats... which would contribute to local taxes.  For that matter, so does rental of shelters there.  Lastly, money collected from the charging fee would as well.

Park Renovation, attitude.  He got annoyed with my constructive posts.  This is what I expect to be his piss-off closure, an attempt to shut me up: "Just think if they had a Kwik Trip in the middle of that "huge" parking lot.  The park could draw huge numbers of visitors from us gas guzzlers..."  The frustrated attitude in such a post was of no surprise.  I routinely encounter many who simply have made up their mind already and don't expect any dialog.  They feel the idea is absurd and not worth any bother.  They close their mind to new opportunity, those chances to embrace paradigm-shift.  He sees the park as serving a very specific purpose in a very specific way.  Why change?  Ugh.  It's like they don't notice the world evolving.  At the park I mention in my reply, they offer free Wi-Fi at the free shelter.  It is a very pleasant location to hang out, quite convenient & comfortable, as well as very scenic.  Annoyed myself, I fired back this feedback to his attitude:  Not taking the situation seriously is a common cop out.  Look at how other parks are addressing the same situation.  Notice the chargers at Whitetail Park?