I am one of those people who tow a utility trailer or other higher load/tow hitch needs.
Unfortunately, while I agree it seems elegant to have a trailer with motor/battery, the beauty of a utility trailer is the abuse it takes, low or no insurance and the low cost. A trailer with motor/battery would be VERY expensive and technically might not be classified as a trailer anymore. If a trailer has a drive train, you have may have extended your "vehicle" and to carry similar weight capacity (Battery + drive train + frame + capacity) may require a different license and insurance due to length, weight, liability and laws in your region/territory.I'd like to see trailers with an integrated battery. Seems like that would be an elegant solution to the reduced range when towing AND it could provide backup power to a house. You also wouldn't be hauling the extra battery weight when you don't need it. The battery wouldn't necessarily need to be connected to the car. You could just put small drive motors in the wheels so the trailer can help 'push' could work similar to how trailer brakes work.
Need vs Want. Tesla could release a 500 mile EPA rated vehicle tomorrow. I’m guessing that would require another 55 to 60 kW bigger battery for the 3/Y. How much more would that cost? As an option for the folks with $$$$.
To quote Big Daddy Don Garlits when asked how much HP is needed, his reply: If some is good, and more is better than too much is just right. Change HP to EV range for today’s discussion.
Better to have and not need than to need and not have.The big difference there is that you can enjoy/benefit from increased HP ~everyday you drive your car. If my Tesla had 100HP that would suck ~everyday. But my Tesla could have a ~100 mile range and I wouldn't notice/care ~90% of the time. And the bigger battery makes your car A LOT heavier ALL the time.
Even throwing a 4 pack of V3's with battery backup at every rest stop and travel plaza would be a great help. But my motives for bigger battery are in holding high charge speeds for longer..if the number of supercharger locations would increase significantly(5 to 10 x) the current batteries would probably be ok.
Remember I said it could be Ann”option”. I agree not everyone wants or needs that range. The same applied to me when I bought our Y, I ordered the LR AWD as I didn’t want or need the Performance model. Options are good and is the easiest way to satisfy customers desires.The big difference there is that you can enjoy/benefit from increased HP ~everyday you drive your car. If my Tesla had 100HP that would suck ~everyday. But my Tesla could have a ~100 mile range and I wouldn't notice/care ~90% of the time. And the bigger battery makes your car A LOT heavier ALL the time.
Options are good and is the easiest way to satisfy customers desires.
Just like the S. We will see Dual Motor and Performance cars get a range boost. Probably 100KWh packs. ~70KWh packs will likely become SRNot really. It complicates production. Tesla sure seems to be taking a similar approach to Apple in that they work to guide what their customers want more than providing for every whim. I'm sure a 80A charging option would be welcome to a lot of people but that's not offered. I believe the S/X use the same pack and there are 2 pack options for the 3/Y so that's 3 packs that Tesla will be producing.
I'd love to see the actual cost to Tesla of the performance upgrade. I'd be surprised if it's ~$1k. It's really just a beefier drive unit. If they had that kind of markup on extra battery capacity it's not likely to be popular enough to justify its existence.