500 + Mile Range Debate

[SageBrush]

Fair point, but the R&D costs for "and make the battery bigger" aren't huge

Far too nebulous a statement to respond to seriously, but I think we can agree on the format:

The market demand has to cover the R&D AND the opportunity cost in this environment of battery production constraint.

 

[kilpatds]

I think the opportunity cost is the much more relevant current issue. Adding 60kW to my car won't be that hard, but it's one less SR+ on the road. So you'd have to charge me enough to make up the profit from that SR+ (eh, sure) and you'd sell one less car to brag to Wall Street about/one less customer who might be locked in to sell auxiliary services to/one fewer EV trying to save the world/etc (eh ... harder to justify)

To be clear, I'm not that bothered by Tesla not making cars to my spec. Someone will make it, businesses can do what they think best. Free Market, yada-yada.

I AM bothered when people try and tell me that "no one actually wants that" (Wat?) or that no one can use that (Wat?) or that no one who would want it exists.(Hey! I exist!)

 

[Terminator857]

The Lunar Landing module was super technologically advanced but I would hardly call it luxury

Sure let me update my description then.
Technologically advanced car = Luxury
From wiktionary:

1. Something desirable but expensive.
2. Something that is pleasant but not necessary in life.

 

[Msicario]

Sure... but if only 1% of buyers are willing to pony up ~$5k for an additional 100 miles of range that car won't be built. How much extra would you pay for 500 miles over 400 miles? My price limit would probably be ~$100... it just wouldn't be that useful.

I truly believe that’s what’s behind the new 4680 battery; Will have lots of cell space for future add on longer range at a premium cost. Currently will only put out the same as the 2170 to keep customer satisfied for now..

 

[SageBrush]

I AM bothered when people try and tell me that "no one actually wants that" (Wat?) or that no one can use that (Wat?) or that no one who would want it exists.(Hey! I exist!)

I like the way you write

There should be a name (or law) given to that hilarious cartoon floating around that shows a guy typing furiously and saying saying something along the lines of 'wait ... I have to correct this error on the internet'

You present a corollary -- someone on the internet disrespected you.

 

[kilpatds]

that shows a guy typing furiously and saying saying something along the lines of 'wait ... I have to correct this error on the internet'

XKCD: Duty Calls

Duty Calls

xkcd.com

 

[ZenRockGarden]

In a world where the R&D cost to offer you the car you want is zero -- no doubt.

Also in the current world, Tesla is selling every single car they can make - largely constrained on how fast they can make the batteries. In that world, putting lots MORE batteries in each car makes very little economic sense even if there's a niche of customers for said product.

 

[Boza]

Sure let me update my description then.
Technologically advanced car = Luxury
From wiktionary:

1. Something desirable but expensive.
2. Something that is pleasant but not necessary in life.

I will keep up with the examples then
Rolls Royce

 

[ThomasD]

Didn't Biden sign a law to make all federal vehicle purchases electric by 2027 to 2030. So vehicles for Boarder Patrol, FBI CIA FEMA and other will need to be electric I would think that these agencies would need vehicles with 500 mile ranges.

 

[nwdiver]

I would think that these agencies would need vehicles with 500 mile ranges.

.... because a 10 minute break every 2 hours would be too much trouble?

 

[ThomasD]

Do you think the R1S from Rivian could replace the Tahoes and Suburbans for Government use

 

[nwdiver]

Do you think the R1S from Rivian could replace the Tahoes and Suburbans for Government use

Yes

 

[ThomasD]

If the Government ordered several hundred RS1 they could mostly get a discount and beat the prices of the stripped down Tahoes. Just take the equipment from the Tahoes and install them on the R1S.

 

[wornout]

Tesla's Elon Musk explains why too much electric vehicle range does not make sense

Elon Musk commented last night that Tesla could have had a Model S that was capable of 600 miles of range on a single charge. However, Tesla decided not to pursue the what would be an industry-leading metric, because it would impact handling, efficiency, and overall performance negatively. “We...

www.teslarati.com

I get it, makes total sense. Hopefully, over time, the weight redunction and battery density improvements will result in more range. I'll even take 400 miles of actual ("in-real-life") range. Because 400 miles of advertised range is more like 280 miles of actual range (for my driving style/speeds.)

(I'll likely keep my 2021 MS LR until there is a noticeable bump in range. 500 miles? *crosses fingers*)

 

[kilpatds]

The core of that argument really annoys me. It applies equally to trucks and SUVs: "Why would you pay that extra size and weight for a capability you'll basically never need"

Oh wait, what's the most popular type of car? SUV you say? Huh. Because that makes no sense, as per the logic above. That can't be right... (But, no really. Trucks & SUVs)

This class of argument either assumes that the majority of actors aren't rational, that the better way isn't known, or that you've misunderstood the costs&benefits. In the case of trucks/SUVs-vs-sedans these tradeoffs are well known:

• Pain and risks around renting a vehicle when required.
  • Getting yourself to the rental place
  • storing the car while renting the other car
  • time/energy of the process. Avoiding upsales, pointless conflict to raise margins, etc
  • the direct costs.
  • Refilling/gas/having to return instantly
  • Risks of the desired vehicle not being available
• The freedom to not plan
• The freedom of being adjust plans on the fly
• The marginal costs are being overstated. Figure $3k/year more[0]? That's ~750/quarter at a guess, and may match the effective rental costs depending on how you value your leisure time at one rental per quarter or less. (It'd be way less than that for a larger battery, vs. "Car vs. Truck")
• The marginal benefits are being underrated. (Nicer driving position. Feeling of safety from not being outsized. Comfortable ride/seats/etc from the excess space, not having to make space for stuff because you can just be a pack rat, etc. For Longer-range battery it's more charging to lower SoC for the next stop, and less hassle in the cold, etc)

And it's as misguided when it comes to range and the utility of range as is it when it comes to car size/capability, or the choice to have a car at all for those in the city. I understand thinking "I've got a better way", but when it's a well trod ground you're re-treading, you really should consider the possibility that it's not everyone else that's wrong.

Just be honest: Tesla wants to optimize for cars delivered, and lower capacity cars help with that.

[0] https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200319.pdf says it's about ~$0.3/mile, but thats for gas cars based on $1.7/gallon gas, and done in 2003-ish. Assuming 10k miles per year, that's ~$3000

 

[Terminator857]

Some people don't care much about acceleration, handling, and efficiency.
Not too many females I met care about acceleration or handling. They just want something that moves.
Efficiency is nice, but driving at steady speed on freeway isn't going to be affected much by mass.

 

[Boza]

If we take another extreme - super small battery and widely available fast charging. The battery will be degraded very quickly. So, larger battery also prolongs the live of the vehicle (especially now, when they make the battery part of the structure - which is a whole new topic altogether).
I think Elon’s argument is false; in reality, they want to churn as many vehicles as possible and batteries are major constraint. So, smaller batteries - more cars.

 

[BooMan]

Although you don't consider it a luxury car, the industry does, because of its price range.

Is a Hellcat Redeye a “luxury “ car?

 

[DblOSmith]

I like my M3, and at the same time, it'd be better if I didn't have to stop at the exact same spots for the exact same breaks every time I travel. I'd like some variety. I am grateful, for SCs. It's a massive EV advantage. Unfortunately, it is like being chained to a single gas station. Either more SCs or more range would help. I want both, honestly. If I need to charge but want BBQ, stop at the one near the BBQ joint. If I need to charge, but want some reject clothes, stop at the SC near the outlet mall. ...and if I don't need to stop, then I don't have to. It's all about options to me.

 

[chinney]

I very much agree with the viewpoint that more range would be a good thing. As I said previously, I think that 400 miles should become a 'standard' nominal range for EVs, with longer range (500+ miles) and shorter range (+/- 300 miles) options also being available. (With respect to the short range option, if a car is only being used as an urban vehicle, 300 nominal miles is more than enough). However, a future where 400 miles would be the standard, and where a 500+ mile option would also be available, depends on batteries becoming considerably lighter and much cheaper. That day is coming - quite soon I think - but it is not here yet.