It all comes down to time. Travel time is the only thing that's important when it comes to mass acceptance...and thus, EV success. While many here echo the "better rested" sentiment after a longer-than-ice tesla trip, that idea is a pretty big red herring. That's not to dismiss the concept btw, but rather frame it in context: it's really just a manifestation of human nature to try to focus on only the positives when one is in favor of something. All good, as long as we don't lose sight of the spade...
With public perception time is what people focus on. Thinking if they aren't moving down the road, they are wasting time. But most of the time people have a destination for a day's drive already decided before they leave. Or at least I always have. If you are stopping at a waypoint along the way, it usually doesn't matter if it took you 9 or 10 hours on the road to get there. Some people may be ambitious in their planning and want to cover 12 hours of miles in a day, but I've found when I've pushed it like that, I'm pretty much useless the next day.
With an EV, you have to change the way you think. In most ways, the improvements on your life are obvious. You trade off having to remember to plug the car in when you get home and the slight inconvenience of unplugging before you leave for never having to stop at a gas station. If you're driving your normal daily route, you are not going to have to "stop for gas" on the way home one or more times a week like you have to do with an ICE. Unless you have a pretty helacious commute, you can probably make the round trip daily on a single charge.
The daily advantages are obvious. The road trip advantages are not. And there are some situations where a Tesla is not suited for a road trip at this time. There are some places where you basically can't get to with an EV unless you want to sit for a half a day at a slow AC charger in the middle of nowhere. Those who do revel in the "iron butt" kind of traveling where you cover 1000 miles in a day will find the long stops to charge frustrating. But there are not many people who are physically up to marathon driving like that.
The supercharger network is not optimum today. One thing having superchargers every 50 miles will do is make a larger battery Tesla more useful. The first generation supercharger network was built for 60s and 70s to get around. 85s and 90s charge faster and don't have to spend as much time at superchargers, but you still have to take the down time to charge at the same distance you would have in a 60 because the car doesn't have the range to skip superchargers and charge at the next one.
When the network gets more filled out, it will be practical to take a 90 or 100 and drive it from 90% to 10% or less between superchargers, then have a meal while the car recharges. You lose time every time you have to slow down and stop, even if the charging stop is only 15 minutes, that's 15 minutes you weren't eating up the miles at 70 mph. When using close to the full range of a 90/100 KWh pack, that's when your body is going to want some downtime to rest and eat anyway and the supercharging happens in parallel.
The new supercharger in Santa Nella will be much better spaced for me than Harris Ranch and Manteca. On my last trip to California I had to stop at both Harris Ranch and Manteca because I didn't quite have the range to get from Atascadero to Manteca in one shot. If they build a supercharger just north of Sacremento, I can cover the Valley in legs better suited to my 90 KWh battery and make better time (assuming the superchagers work correctly).
The supercharger network is not laid out perfectly today, but it's getting better all the time. As for the time "lost" charging, some of it is real, but some is perception. It will be a stumbling block for EV acceptance until enough people make the paradigm shift.
