reynirb
Member
Agree. Range is effectively only important because of charging rates. When was the last time an ICE car talked about a 50 mile range difference? If charging were a few minutes, would 300 miles sell significantly more than a cheaper 250 miles?
Imo this is about production constraints and profit margin imo. Dedicate the supply chain to the trims that bring in the most revenue- which for Tesla are the more premium EVs.
Does this range requirement help delineate Tesla’s brand, or feed into ICE companies range anxiety narrative?
It seems more defensive than offensive. It could help Tesla maintain dominance over what is a relatively small market for EVs by using the ICE companies range narrative against ICE manufacturer EV offerings. But the difference between notional 250 vs 300 isn’t removing the sensationalized range “problem” or tangibly helping growing the EV market. It validates it. That’s a win for ICE.
I think we have to also face the reality that some people will always find a "problem" with electric cars. If it isn't the range, it is the battery lifespan. If it is not battery lifespan, it is they are too quiet. Or too heavy. Or something else.
Those same people would have said a century ago that the cars will never take off, as he have plenty of horses and there is grass everywhere. Who wants to buy gasoline in a jar at your local pharmacy so you can go somewhere?
And what's the point of the Kitty Hawk in 1903? That plane can't carry 400 people and fly NY to London nonstop.
I see people complaining that cars don't have 500 miles of range and don't take 5 minutes to charge, ignoring the fact that they drive 20 miles to work round trip, and no one sane wants to drive 500 miles non stop and refuel in 5 minutes anyways.
Which again explains why every single rest area in my state is packed, every single day, with ICE cars filling up the parking lot...