GRA wrote:Actually, an 85kWh Tesla would work just fine, given Superchargers in the right areas. Even a 60kWh Tesla would work, with a bit more inconvenience.
..providing not too many people actually have them.
The problem with EVs is that you need to sell 10,000s of them to get economies of scale and promote improved and developing technologies to bring the price down. But once you have 10,000s of vehicles all running down the same 500 mile route, all needing a charge, that'll be 1,000s of vehicles all needing a charge at the same time.
En-route charging is a short term solution whilst the actual number of BEVs is low. But if the future of BEVs is, say, as high as a 10% penetration then there will simply be too many vehicles to recharge on major routes and EV drivers would be foolhardy to set out on a return route greater than their vehicle range.
GRA wrote:I expect people to quote a realistic figure, one that the average person is actually likely to use. One of the members here has the record for longest un-recharged range in a LEAF, at 188 miles IIRR. But he averaged around 18 mph to do it, in Phoenix, no accessories, hot day etc. This has absolutely zero to do with how normal people drive their car.
You have to be consistent here - either you expect the range YOU
want quoted, or you would be happy with an achievable range
in reasonable circumstances
In this case, I would agree that a claim of 120 mile range is egging it on a bit too far, but a 100 mile claim would not be unreasonable
If you wanna go further in an BEV, drive at 55.
Other traffic drives at that speed, so what's unreasonable
If you don't wanna go slower but still demand the quoted ranges, don't drive a BEV!
You just seem to be moaning that the fuel supplies of the world are drying up stopping you from looning it down the highway at breakneck speeds. Awww.. diddums. Remember the 55 limit in the US came in largely as a response to oil supply concerns, which in turn was down to US folks insisting on their right to bumble around in 10 mpg monstrosities. I think in those days they came up with equally disconnected logic, saying they would refuse to drive smaller cars with smaller engines. That sounds as logical as your argument, saying they would refuse to drive slower.
So don't be surprised if lower speed limits kick in again, whilst speed merchants like you want to peg it down the highways at speeds that increase the physical end environmental dangers to everyone else with the only tangible outcome is that you're doubling your fuel consumption.
You should carry on only thinking only of yourself and the essential
requirement you have to feel like you are driving fast. What would your life be about, if you could not burn down the highways zooming past slower traffic? That's really important, because other people's safety, security of energy supplies, efficient use of dwindling resources, all of this is insignificant compared with your need to feel
like your not driving too slow.