No, Elon said that the cheapest model would be minimum 215 EPA range. That is a careful statement which totally ignores 'real world'.
And Elon Musk has said, before the Model ☰ Reveal Part I, that it was absolutely necessary that a 200 mile range, in a realistic fashion, is achieved with Model ☰. 200 miles minimum, while driving normally -- not when hypermiling at substandard speeds, or in perfect weather, or only on flat ground. That is his stated concept of
'Real World' range.
No. I will never argue in favor of anything being
'brainless'. Easy? Sure. But lobotomized, automatic, or sleep walking...?
NO. The world is a better place when people think.
Let's take I-90, this is a full cross-country interstate. If Tesla determines that its predicted fleet needs 3000 chargers along that length (pulling a number from the air), should those chargers be in 20 stations 150 miles apart, 60 stations 50 miles apart, or 3,000 stations 1 mile apart? Clearly that last is wrong, but I don't see how 20 stations are better than 60. There are some fixed costs that push the optimum toward fewer, larger stations, but customer convenience and safety push the other way. Since I have no idea what those fixed costs are, and can't imagine them being overwhelming, I see
This hypothetical seems to be completely off the rails
(yes, on the crazy train 
). Also, I suspect you didn't quite finish that last sentence. Something more should appear after
"...I see..." it seems.
But, yeah... Tesla Motors will determine the dispersal of Superchargers to cover the needs of the cars they build. In some places, they will be very dense, to provide for those owners who live in urban areas. In some places they will be rather frequent, to take care of popular routes. But in most places, Superchargers will be spaced so that they allow for easy access over a given terrain, in the weather conditions observed for the area, while still meeting the needs of the traffic that flows through that area.
Tesla needs to build SC for the current fleet, as well as the upcoming fleet, (and hopefully the non-Tesla fleet as well). Nor do I see minimum range constantly increasing. It is an engineering trade off, and Tesla is on the side of more cars, rather than more range. I don't envision a lot of 500 mile range vehicles, particularly if we get sensible about other things as well.
The current fleet of Tesla Motors' Supercharger enabled vehicles is all capable of 200+ miles of range. Every single one of them. Not some, not half, but ALL of them. So, a Supercharger network with locations spaced 150 miles apart is just fine, even during inclement weather conditions. Plus, it seems that in high speed areas of the US Interstate, Tesla Motors intends to build out the Superchargers at around 80-to-90 miles apart.
The minimum range of the majority of ICE vehicles has been steadily increasing since 1976, due to the EPA mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) requirements. Those who insist that ICE is
'better' that EV, and go so far as to state that ICE will
'ALWAYS be BETTER' often point out the extreme cases of range that can be achieved. Yes, it is a rather disingenuous point, because those very same gearheads also hate to be reminded that they were against the CAFE regulations, and improved fuel economy, and the emissions controls, and the computer controls, and every other advance of the past forty years that allowed ICE to remain viable.
Though EVs are well above current CAFE standards, they do lag behind in range. The idea is to make sure that there is no remaining argument in favor of ICE. So faster charging and battery swap were introduced. And Performance of EV has been proven to demolish ICE in most Real World applications. So, the remaining benchmarks are Top Speed and Range. There is no place other than race tracks in the US to consider cruising at 300 kph
(186 MPH) or faster for any great length of time. So, that leaves Range as the final hurdle to prove once and for all the dominance of EVs.
Sure, an 85 kWh capacity is about the same as 2.5 gallons of gasoline in energy potential. There aren't any Real World passenger cars that will take you over 250 miles on 2.5 gallons of gas. And even a Prius would get you only half that distance on that quantity of fuel. That should be enough to prove the point, but it isn't, because a Prius may burn more gas, but can travel a much further distance.
For the point to be proven so that no one has any argument at all, there must come a time when a fully electric vehicle not only matches, but greatly surpasses the range of ICE vehicles. Once a battery pack has a capacity that allows for the energy equivalent of 5 gallons of gasoline to be held in an affordable EV, it is over. And once that improves to allow the energy equivalent of 10 gallons or more, people will be truly amazed that they ever even considered using ICE as a primary form of transportation.
As battery technology improves, fewer battery cells will be needed to contain a given capacity. Thus, the cost for battery cells per car will go down, though the capacity goes up. So the electric cars will have battery packs that weigh less and provide more range. There is no reason for this to stop.
Why would Tesla ever build a Supercharger where there was no demand? Given demand why would all of that demand necessarily go to some other charger? Not every person is starting from the same place and going on the same journey. Taking the I-90 example above, why would everyone suddenly visit only odd numbered SC, and not even numbered ones? That's nuts, especially when they know the wait at the even numbered ones is less.
Tesla Motors shouldn't build Superchargers where there is no demand. I say that they won't. My point is that too many are arguing that they should do so anyway, and that is
WRONG. Several Tesla Enthusiasts have joined with Tesla Naysayers and have stated they want Superchargers at every exit, or every 15 miles, or every 30 miles, or every 50 miles -- in every direction, on every road, street, or highway throughout the entire United States of America. I firmly disagree. Because though that would be extremely convenient, it would also be a waste of resources, both physically and financially.
People choose the places they stop while traveling for various reasons. Maybe they like the food, shopping, or amenities at one location more than others. Maybe they think one site is more secure, less
'seedy' than another. Maybe they do so out of pure habit. Maybe they like the view. But along popular routes, there are always stops that are more popular with travelers than others. And at some of the places they stop, because they are popular, the service and the wait may be longer. The
'why' may change from one site to another, but people will stop there anyway if they determine the experience they crave is
'worth it'. And sure, some will choose the opposite strategy and just stop at the least popular locations to avoid crowds and waiting as a priority.
When travelling cross country, I would always stop at
Carrow's on the East side of El Paso. On my way to Mississippi, I'd stop there for Dinner. On my way to Los Angeles, I'd stop there for Breakfast. Since that
Carrow's is now closed, I now stop to eat at the
Cracker Barrel on the West side of El Paso instead.
The electric fleet is going to be doubling in size at least nine times in the next decade or two. Chargers will need to be matching that at least somewhat closely.
That means that Tesla Motors has a decade or two to
REMAIN ahead of the curve. Because, their Supercharger network is already ahead of the pace. There is no reason to expect they will fall behind. Especially when the entire Supercharger network that existed through March 31, 2016 is due to be
DOUBLED by the end of 2017. And the majority of owners will charge at home or at work for the duration.
You are always most welcome.
