3 ms·

> So seems like you already have much better options available. If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that

> So seems like you already have much better options available. If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops. This is still far too limited. I could drive slower, or just not take trips at all, but I expect my car to fit my lifestyle and not the other way around. > Sure, but it remains a niche use-case Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements (https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future-mobility/our-insights/exploring-consumer-sentiment-on-electric-vehicle-charging https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future...). You might feel this is a niche issue, but the majority of EV buyers feel it's a very big issue to them. It's clear that you're willing to make sacrifices for smaller batteries, and that's perfectly valid. You must just accept that others value different things.

arghwhat 2y ago
> If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops. 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h. If you are driving between highway charge stops, it's a bit over 3.5 hours between stops. > Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers. Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need. > You must just accept that others value different things. And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns. I'm sure we can agree that any vehicle is objectively best if it is optimized for your actual needs, and that the more often it fit your need the better. This makes it quite simple: Does your daily driving equal roadtrips, yes or no? If not, you will get an objectively better experience (better handling, less noise, less energy/fuel cost, less tire wear, faster charging to full) while simultaneously saving your bank account and the environment. And no, a dialy driver doesn't mean "renault zoe", it just means "smaller and lighter battery". If you drive 1 roadtrip per year or less, it makes sense to rent the car for roadtrip to get the best of both worlds: the best roadtrip machine and the best daily driver, which are mutually exclusive requirements. The roadtrip vehicle might be a large, comfortable ICE car with below average fuel economy and plenty of space - maybe even pulling a camping wagon depending on what you want to do on roadtrips. If you drive 2+ roadtrips per year, maybe it starts to make sense to buy a roadtrip-specific secondary vehicle. If you drive much more than that (e.g., every weekend, or daily work involves multi-hour driving), then it starts to make sense financially to compromise and use a roadtrip vehicle for daily driving.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  > 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h. That is incorrect. Review the issue I outline above. The optimal charging range is 10% to 80% (as per Tesla's recommendation). That is 70%, or 336km. At 140kph that is 2.4 hours, or 2 hours and 24 minutes. > It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers. It is clearly both. People can and do care about more than one thing at a time. It could be that offering more ubiquitous charging would reduce this area of concern, but that's far from a proven hypothesis. Especially in terms of proportional response. > Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need. If you care about adoption, you should care very much about why non-adopters are not adopting EVs. I don't understand your point of contention. These are real people with real concerns and real requirements with real money who will really not buy EVs until their desires are addressed. Let us never forget that the customer decides what they spend their money on. They alone decide what matters to them. > And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns. Surveys suggest people disagree with you. I disagree with you. You're making a values based judgement about the needs of people and claiming that your values are or should be everyone's, and that's clearly incorrect. Just because you don't mind stopping more frequently on trips doesn't mean others share your position. You equate daily driving with road trips, suggesting you either didn't register my explanation of marginal utility, or don't understand it. This is marginal utility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility). Different people assign different levels of value to different things. You, for example, place very little value on comfort during road trips. No problem. You are free to do so. Others, however - and a great many of them - assign much more value to road trips. So we wish to drag around much heavier batteries during our daily commutes to make our road trips faster. We're willing to pay more for that privilege, too. We care about it so much, that we won't buy EVs which make our road trips slower and less convenient. No amount of badgering will convince us to change what we value. I have tried renting ICE vehicles for road trips. It is a truly terrible experience every single time. Rental agencies are predatory. There are many reasons people prefer to own instead of rent. I have decided I do not like renting. I instead wish my car to fit my needs. This is hardly a radical proposition. It would take a lot of road trips to justify the cost of a second vehicle. I don't think it makes financial or environmental sense.

arghwhat 2y ago

> If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops. 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h. If you are driving between highway charge stops, it's a bit over 3.5 hours between stops. > Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers. Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need. > You must just accept that others value different things. And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns. I'm sure we can agree that any vehicle is objectively best if it is optimized for your actual needs, and that the more often it fit your need the better. This makes it quite simple: Does your daily driving equal roadtrips, yes or no? If not, you will get an objectively better experience (better handling, less noise, less energy/fuel cost, less tire wear, faster charging to full) while simultaneously saving your bank account and the environment. And no, a dialy driver doesn't mean "renault zoe", it just means "smaller and lighter battery". If you drive 1 roadtrip per year or less, it makes sense to rent the car for roadtrip to get the best of both worlds: the best roadtrip machine and the best daily driver, which are mutually exclusive requirements. The roadtrip vehicle might be a large, comfortable ICE car with below average fuel economy and plenty of space - maybe even pulling a camping wagon depending on what you want to do on roadtrips. If you drive 2+ roadtrips per year, maybe it starts to make sense to buy a roadtrip-specific secondary vehicle. If you drive much more than that (e.g., every weekend, or daily work involves multi-hour driving), then it starts to make sense financially to compromise and use a roadtrip vehicle for daily driving.

Gareth321 2y ago
> 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h. That is incorrect. Review the issue I outline above. The optimal charging range is 10% to 80% (as per Tesla's recommendation). That is 70%, or 336km. At 140kph that is 2.4 hours, or 2 hours and 24 minutes. > It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers. It is clearly both. People can and do care about more than one thing at a time. It could be that offering more ubiquitous charging would reduce this area of concern, but that's far from a proven hypothesis. Especially in terms of proportional response. > Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need. If you care about adoption, you should care very much about why non-adopters are not adopting EVs. I don't understand your point of contention. These are real people with real concerns and real requirements with real money who will really not buy EVs until their desires are addressed. Let us never forget that the customer decides what they spend their money on. They alone decide what matters to them. > And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns. Surveys suggest people disagree with you. I disagree with you. You're making a values based judgement about the needs of people and claiming that your values are or should be everyone's, and that's clearly incorrect. Just because you don't mind stopping more frequently on trips doesn't mean others share your position. You equate daily driving with road trips, suggesting you either didn't register my explanation of marginal utility, or don't understand it. This is marginal utility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility). Different people assign different levels of value to different things. You, for example, place very little value on comfort during road trips. No problem. You are free to do so. Others, however - and a great many of them - assign much more value to road trips. So we wish to drag around much heavier batteries during our daily commutes to make our road trips faster. We're willing to pay more for that privilege, too. We care about it so much, that we won't buy EVs which make our road trips slower and less convenient. No amount of badgering will convince us to change what we value. I have tried renting ICE vehicles for road trips. It is a truly terrible experience every single time. Rental agencies are predatory. There are many reasons people prefer to own instead of rent. I have decided I do not like renting. I instead wish my car to fit my needs. This is hardly a radical proposition. It would take a lot of road trips to justify the cost of a second vehicle. I don't think it makes financial or environmental sense.