How? What goalposts, specifically, does that move?
You were comparing EVs to ICE cars on the topic of million mile batteries.
The existing battery already lasts 5 times longer than most people need in a new car. (and far longer than that of other EVs for that matter).
Nobody needs an EV either. Your point? This idea of need is based on your own subjective idea of what people need. Nobody really needs a Tesla, right? Why do people pay a premium for them?
The fact a new one would last 10 times longer instead of 5 is incredibly yawnworthy to that new car buyer.
Unless it's not. You're applying your own peculiar values to everyone.
See again nobody rushing out to buy CATLs million mile battery despite it already having been available for a while now.
Marketing matters, even if it's just a list of features on a site from a manufacturer that doesn't advertise in the usual fashion. One thing EVs can always benefit from is reliability, longevity, range, and fast-charging. This is true even if the full potential isn't realized, just like most people don't keep any car for as long as they could (but some do).
As I say "battery now lasts 10 times longer than you will likely own the car" isn't worse than "will last 5 times longer than you will likely own the car"
But it's also not really a value add either.
To whom? Nearly all vehicles last longer than their owners drive them, and their second or third owners might drive them, but it's still important in marketing for the first buyer. It's important for competition, just as it's important to know that the Model 3 is the safest car ever tested by the NHTSA. It doesn't mean we *need* that, but it's an objectively good thing, good for investors, good when comparing against competition, good for stockholders, etc. Will everyone need that? No, but some will.
Which is why other than as a marketing slogan to get headlines, it's vastly, vastly, vastly, less significant a thing to announce than the 2 actually important battery related improvements that Elon himself has cited as the 2 things they actually need to improve
Cost and volume.
Yes, but that doesn't undermine its effective use for all of the reasons discussed; marketing (website), general knowledge by owners, inspiring confidence in new BEV buyers, etc. There's always a bigger fish to fry, but that doesn't undermine the value of the smaller fish, and much of this value is being assigned by you with your peculiar value system. I understand that you don't think it matters, but I think it matters for all of the reasons stated. Mainly, I'm wondering if battery longevity helps EVs retain their range over the course of 10 years plus. Does it? I don't know. If so, that's huge.
Again- nobody cares about a "million mile battery" that already exists
Because it costs a little more- and CATL can't make them especially faster than the normal ones.
So it doesn't address either actual battery problem that anyone cares about
The fact that the tech exists is itself of value. Why would a battery that has such a long life not help with retaining range over the usable life of a car? The only thing I would agree on here is that a million mile battery doesn't matter IF range reduction happens the same as it would otherwise.
"The data show that drivers, on average, made two driving trips per day, with an average total duration of 46 minutes (median 22 minutes) and total distance of 29.2 miles (median 10.0 miles)."
That's why I said either 30 or 10 miles depending if you use mean or median.
The median is only 10 miles because the majority of all trips is less than 10 miles... so the very few much longer trips increase the mean a lot, but the median only a little.
So MOST drivers- 10 miles or less. But the "average" of everyones driving ends up around 30 miles.
Do these people work? This doesn't sound remotely accurate though I understand some jobs allow people to stay close to home. Many people have a commute, otherwise why is the 405 here in SoCal the most congested freeway in the nation? Even if if we grant your figure, it makes zero sense considering the ranges that EV companies are after. Why do we need more range than 322 miles in a Model 3 LR AWD? Do you know something Tesla doesn't? Why do smaller EVs with poor ranges do so poorly in sales, such as the FIAT 500e or the smart electric drive? Why does range-anxiety exist? What about long trips, or making the car work harder (poor weather, towing, more mass in vehicle, faster driving)? How one drives makes a difference.
Again, I'm talking about pre-pandemic times. California alone has a huge density of EV early-adopters and commuters and the most congested freeway in the nation (the 405). Your figure doesn't ring true at all for the demographic of EV buyers, especially Tesla buyers.
One of the primary concerns of any EV owner is range. 322 miles seems like a lot until you take a long trip, or drive fast in a SoCal HOV lane for a long time, or want to drive longer without stopping, or use the heat or A/C a lot whilst driving up hills in a winter or hot summer. Basically, you can't have too much range, especially during a transition between ICE and EVs, especially when most people don't have L2 chargers, some people can't easily acquire them or aren't homeowners, where Supercharing too often isn't recommended, and where there's still some amount of time needed to charge (over gas fillups).
And, if Tesla has access to these statistics, why is Tesla continually raising the range on their vehicles, along with other EV manufacturers? Remember, it's not just about range and the mileage of your drive every day, it's about conditions, grades, weather, driving style, traffic conditions, etc.
But it means, statistically, your commute is MUCH longer than average for people in the US.
You're falling in to a false-weighting statistical fallacy here. Here's an example. Do you understand how unmarried people pay more for auto insurance in the U.S., except for Massachusetts which has properly outlawed marital-status discrimination? Now, why would unmarried pay higher rates, ignoring the absurdity of this criteria for a moment?
It's because among the group of unmarried people, there is a much higher population of the youngest, least experienced, highest-risk drivers (young people) and unmarried persons who might be widowed due to advanced age (some of whom also should not be driving). Some outliers like me simply don't believe in marriage, but our numbers are few (though growing). This statistic selects for or cherry picks an average age of drivers in their prime, and uses marital-status as if it directly relates to driving which it doesn't. It's unfairly weighted. And, with the divorce rates and family court nonsense as they are—unmarried people should pay less...but I digress.
Being a statistical outlier happens of course- I've been on BOTH ends of that myself... a previous residence my drive to work was about 3 miles. Now it's well over 30. Both 1 way.
I understand what you mean about anecdotes, but your stats are wrong because they're weighting *everyone* vs. the specific demo of potential EV owners or Tesla buyers/owners. The person who works at McDonald's has a short commute because obviously they'd choose any minimum job close by, but these people aren't driving Teslas (in most cases), though I believe the local Macca's manager does drive a Model 3. Some older people may work fast food for something to do even if they don't need the money, but I'm talking about the rule here and not the exception.
Basically, the best jobs are few and concentrated in metropolitan areas, in part to attract talent from higher population densities which have a higher incidence of talent. You're going to find more programmers in Los Angeles than Des Moines. Tesla itself is based in Silicon Valley with its main factory in Fremont. L.A. is a metro area, where the best jobs in many fields are concentrated in L.A. (not the suburbs). But, people live in those suburbs, and many of them commute to areas where their jobs are. Some people have the types of well-paid careers where they can work close to home, but many do not.
Among Tesla owners, you'd probably find a much higher incidence of commute (or average higher commute) than simply averaging some cross section of people generally who couldn't afford a Tesla. So, your 30 miles per day figure has no connection to EVs or Tesla purchases in particular, and thus no connection to desired range among premium EV buyers.
Further, this assumes the person who moves close to a job keeps it as long as they want. People change jobs, but they don't always change homes (and sometimes they can't if they're locked in to a lease or are homeowners with families). So, they commute. My entire career is full of people with crazy commutes, and some commute 2 hours one way. Some moved close to work, but once someone buys a home they're set up to have a commute if they change jobs. Working from home takes some of the pressure off and the pandemic forced this situation early, but you have to weight commutes among the EV/Tesla demographic (people who can afford luxury EVs)—not just a random sampling of people.
But you probably shouldn't try and make national (or worldwide) judgements based on personal anecdotes that run counter to aggregated facts and data.
Your figures aren't fact. They're falsely weighted using an average that isn't exclusive to EV or Tesla owners. Obviously, you can weight any statistic this way to support an incorrect position. See my example of 'married vs. unmarried drivers'.
Again- regardless of your personal circumstances, that's the vast minority of daily drives.
So again the only cherry picking appears to be yours, trying to imply your personal situation is typical when the facts nationally show otherwise.
We should conduct a poll here, asking people how long their commutes are since we have a great self-selected groups of Tesla enthusiasts. Some may work from home (pandemic or not). I work from home by design (pandemic not a factor). WFH is more of a reality these days, but in tech or other high paying jobs you're going to have a commute if you don't want to live in the city or pay exorbitant rents, especially if you already own a home. Some people can make a great living close to home, sure, but a lot of us have to commute. I think it makes more sense not to weight ALL people but those earning enough to actually buy a Tesla. Even better, poll commute data from existing owners.
Nobody cared- and no customers for it have been announced because JUST being able to say MILLION MILES has no practical value outside marketing. It's not cheaper, and it can't be made in massively larger #s than the normal kind- so it's mostly a nothingburger.
You contradicted yourself. Marketing has value because drawing people out of ICE and in to EVs is important now more than it will ever be in the future. Marketing answers buyer objections, so it's important even if it's a list of features on a website (Tesla style).
Nobody (for most values of nobody) drives a car for 1,000,000 miles.
If they last that long they might, or 4 different owners might. With EVs there's less to break down and one doesn't need to actually go the full million miles for this extra life to be a benefit for consumer confidence, which is vital in this transitionary phase from ICE.
The average new car owner doesn't even drive it for 100,000 miles. So why would they care if the battery dies on the 3rd owner or the 6th owner?
You're talking about ICE cars again, which have far more that can go wrong over the life of the car, and require much more diligent maintenance. With an EV, battery life is one of the longevity bottlenecks, along with range loss.
What's going to be important for Tesla, the company, is announcing batteries that:
1) Cost less
2) Can be produced far faster and/or in far larger numbers
And have more range, charge faster, and long life is just a bonus. Again, buyer confidence is key, both for cars and the stock. We're planning for the future here. EVs need to inspire as much buyer confidence as possible while there are still objections. That time will never be greater than the present, because with every passing year Tesla (and its future competition) will prove the viability of EVs.
I think Tesla's valuation and stock are ample evidence of this, to-date.
