This debate is funny to me for some issues and very interesting for other reasons.
The funny thing - to use someone else words I saw in this forum - is that those who are fine with existing rage atre trying to convice those who are not fine that they do not need an extra range. And viceversa.
but: what is a need?
Do we really need a car that does 0-60 mphin 1.99 secs ? or iwould it be enough in 4.5 secs?
In term of "needs" what we all really need is only drinkable water, eatable food... So not only Tesla, but any car is not really "needed" when we have water and food...
Thus, in our contest, "need" should be intended as "comfort need".
I do not really need to pay extra money for 21 inches wheels, but I want them. So? is it a "need"?
Enlarging the discussion, we should also consider that the people in this forum is already a selected part of the population who are in favor to - or are anyway happy with - the existing ranges. But if we look at the entire population, the situation is different: the large majority rejects the EV because of the insufficient range. Correct or not that point of view, this is a fact.
Second and serious point: EPA range is not a real available range.
It goes without saying that if 400 miles were a real available range, those like me would be happy with it.
Unfortunately, the range is important on long travels, which are normally driven at high speed when consumption is higher (in Europe, consider that 85 mph is just the starting point of a high speed driving
). EPA range is based on an average that includes city and low speed driving in fair conditions - in which cases a long range is irrelevant (who is interested of 500 miles range at city speed???).
More: EPA estimate considers to use the entire battery capacity. But if you consider to save at least 10% of safe margin (not mentioning the degradation issue), at least in my case a MS raven 19 inch wheels can travel 380 km at high speed (i.e. 240 miles). Not more.
Ok someone could say: drive slower... But we come to the point of a "comfortable need".
To me, driving slow to save range is a limitation. That I could solve in two ways:
a) range increase (150 rated miles)
b) buy an ICE car.
in terms of money, the choice is very easy: buy an ICE car and save cash.
in terms of environmental impact, buy a Tesla and accept time wasting.
If range were increased, I could satisfy my "comfort need". Since I can afford it, I am ready to add 20.000 euros for that.
Someone else instead is not available to pay the same for the range increase, but prefers to spend 40.000 euros more than me in order to be faster in the 0-60 race...
To make an example, I travel three times a year from Milano to south Puglia (1.100 km one way).
If I plan this trip with an ICE car I need 8,5 hours (my best time with no traffic was 8:15).
with a MS Raven my best performance was 10:20 min. But in winter also 11:00.
So, only for that I waste in average 2:30. per 4 people is 10 hours one way. which is 60 hours in a year.
Considering a 10 years car life, this means 600 hours,
which are equivalent to 25 days.
if I add the other long trips to the computation, by estimating some statistics I get from ABRP on annual kW chaged in DC, I can estimate that the annual time wasted is three times more.
This means 75 days of life in 10 years use.
Hey! I was forgetting one point: that wasted time should be accounted to the "active part" of the day, Rarely you can sleep while supercharging...
to be simplistic, let's consider that the active part of the day is 50% of the daytime.
if so, those 75 days become 150 days - 5 months
I definitively would spend 20.000 euros to have a longer active life period of 5 months