> Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack? More likely is

> Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack? More likely is they're being ultra-cautious because they don't have their own data in place for how the batteries will respond. Well, its clearly inefficient, whether it degredes rapidly or not was just a guess. My argument is that building EVs is harder than Teslas critics have admitted. If Audi don't know the degreadation state for their own battery then that kindof backs that up. The e-Tron is a nice enough car but it was trailed as being a Tesla killer and its clearly not that. > This is all based on the new Model S having a range 80 miles higher than the e-Tron and 50 miles higher than the I-Pace My argument is not really about range, its about range for a given battery size - i.e. efficiency. Batteries are heavy and expensive - thats why building an affordable long range EV is such a challenge. If your EV is inefficient, it will be heavier and more expensive than it needs to be. Even if the e-Tron used 100% of its battery it would still only get 230 miles of range. Still below the base Model S, which - probably - has something like a 70/80 kWH battery - smaller, lighter and cheaper. I like the look of the i-Pace but it seems to be smaller on the inside than it should be. It supposed to be an SUV and just 500lbs lighter than the enormous Model X but its got just a slightly bigger boot than the Nissan Leaf (17 cubic feet vs 15.3). Presumably, thats because its full of big heavy battery. > I'd expect Tesla to settle in as something around BMW, luxury price points, decent profit margins, solid but not massive sales numbers. The model 3 has ended up solidly within that price bracket. Yeah you might be right, I am disappointed that they abandoned the $35k target for the Model 3.