Yep, this is an excellent point: if you could get that sort of range, then most of the market would happily buy about a 1/4 of that provided the price was similarly much lower.

You’re overthinking it. Range is main thing people worry about, especially ones with no EV experience (which is majority of the world). Big range is how to you get headlines.

That doesn't really matter if the car is ludicrously expensive or the battery takes up too much space (or something else, like it's prone to bulging or spontaneous combustion). People don't worry about those things with today's EVs because they aren't problems. I have three EVs and no amount of range would overcome certain downsides.

You sound exactly like anti-EV people. I don’t need EV, it’ll be too expensive, etc, etc.

Toyota, at least historicity, is targeting mass market, where they can make affordable and reliable car. Current EV works for you? Great! But it doesn’t for many others.

I have EV and PHEV, and I won’t abandon my PHEV (big car) till battery is significantly better - I need a second big car, with a big range, that comes without any asterisks.

I think you're missing the point: "range at all costs" isn't the answer if it means tradeoffs that most people wouldn't make. As the topmost comment said, if you can charge in ten minutes, why do you need 700 miles of range? They're talking about a battery that can get you from SF to LA and nearly all the way back in one charge. Who is making that trip without ten minutes to spare along the way?

Every positive aspect to a battery (lacking some novel miracle) means a tradeoff. Faster charges? More weight. More capacity? Physically larger. Better heat management? More expensive materials. (Obviously just hypothetical examples)

To the point of the root comment, 700+ miles of range is outrageous when you can refuel in nearly the same time as an ICE vehicle just doesn't make a lot of sense. So why bother accepting the other tradeoffs? Make a battery that's 500 miles and doesn't eat through tires nearly as fast due to weight. Make a battery that charges in 20 minutes instead of 10 and make the trunk a normal size. What technical challenges painted them into this specific corner that they're not talking about?

It’s trade off at all cost, according to you. Again, just because current tech works for you, it doesn’t mean it should stop there. I don’t understand why you’re so triggered that someone may get bigger battery. And why 500 is ok why 700 isn’t?

90% of people don’t need SUVs and trucks, yet they still dominate sales.

And, 700 miles in EV, after you add all asterisks can easily become 350 miles.

You're still missing the point: I would love a battery that has these attributes without tradeoffs. But as the root comment says: the numbers here are exceptionally large, breaking the step function of progress. And they make no mention of downsides, which implies they're hiding the problems.

It's not about being "triggered", it's asking the legitimate question of whether (and specifically, which) technical problems led them to these battery properties. I think we can all agree that this battery isn't going to be a miracle innovation, or they'd have hyped its lack of downsides. That being the case, we must admit that the battery has problems (acceptable to some consumers or not) and that the regular re-hyping of this vaporware is indeed an admission of technical failure in some way.

Yes, people have a very warped idea on how far they are actually traveling and focus on range at all costs.

If you've actually driven an EV, you realize mileage is a crock of shit so getting 700 miles actually means you can not worry.

* You can't use the bottom 10% without going against recommendations

* You shouldn't charge above 85-90% to avoid going against recommendations

* If you drive over 65 mph, the drain is above average.

* If you tow a trailer, your range is halved.

* If you install a little storage roof rack, you lose 20-30% of range

* You experience 10% battery degradation in the first couple years of ownership.

I really don't want a reply to this comment to be "Well...gas engines..."

I'm just going by the statistics, where I live (France), half of the workers are living less than 12km from their workplace.

Right now, electric cars have improved and the ones being sold are in the 300km battery range.

That's already overkill for most of the normal usage. People have a warped idea on how they are using their car and think they are doing way longer trips than the statistics tells you.

I'm using an EV myself and I changed nothing to my behavior, everything is alright.

The problem is that here in the US, the chance of making a 200 mile trip 10-20x in 3-5 years is high and no one here wants to deal with getting a rental or special car just to do that.

We like our road trips and while they're rare, they're important and we don't want to rent or have a second car in order to do that.

EVs need to be comparable with gas cars in realistic scenarios and that means a real 3-400 miles. Not 400 miles but with a giant list of can't do's

It’s either get off fossil fuels or die.

Then we’ll die if we can’t innovate fast enough.

The last couple of decades have shown what happens if you warn people about some imperceptible (to them) danger and tell them sacrifice personally, even in minor ways, to stave it off.

Frighteningly little happens. The change that does happen has been frequently coming in on a wave of technical innovation making greener options superior to old ones.

I'm well aware. The masses have to believe that though

My gasoline car doesn’t get 400mi of range. Most modern EVs easily get 200 miles. Only a fraction of people will tow a boat or camper.

Once you drive an EV you realize that the range is less of a concern than you though it would be.

I had one from 2019 till a few months ago and I never really shook the anxiety and I live in SoCal where there were chargers coming out of my ears. I think the anxiety is mostly there unless you own a home or garage where you can charge nightly.

you forgot about the up to 20%? degradation in the cold

Great point. That's another one.

I think the heat also causes problems too? https://blog.carvana.com/2023/04/preventing-ev-battery-degra...

Everything here is accurate. I still chose an EV because I can deal with the caveats, but this helps clarify to me why others wouldn't want to bother. This doesn't even mention access to charging; much easier for homeowners to justify an EV.

One thing though:

> You shouldn't charge above 85-90% to avoid going against recommendations

Daily driving this doesn't matter much. Longer drives you can charge to 100% as long as you depart within a reasonable time frame of say within 6 hours, probably longer. More annoying is the charging curve after 80% at fast charging stations. In my experience you usually won't want to spend the time to get that last 20% unless absolutely necessary.

Yeah, I'm not hating at all on EVs. Just saying that a 700 mile battery would assuage a lot of fears. I owned a Tesla from 2019 till a few months ago. I got bored and sold it for a profit and got myself an old LX470.

Most of those problems are exactly the same with ICE engines. You may not want that comment, but it's true.

Except the roof rack one is bogus. I installed the cross bars of a roof rack on my Bolt EUV (it came with the rails), and afaict it affected my mileage not at all. I still get 320 to 330 estimated miles (against the EPA's 247 estimated miles).

And the don't charge above 85--90% one is bogus too; there's talk about that on forums, but the manufacturer says nothing about it.

And I wouldn't want to go below 10% on a gas powered car either...

I'm open to you explaining how those ice issues are the same instead of just saying they are.

Running your car to zero fuel may potentially damage your fuel pump while running your Tesla or electric car to 0% constantly will completely destroy the battery. Much more expensive issue. Someone can easily bring you a small Jerry can of gas if you run out while it's day near impossible to do the same thing for an electric car. It'll need to be towed.

> Perhaps this battery's maximum rate of discharge is so low

If someone invented a battery great in all dimensions except a low discharge rate, it would just be paired with a regular lithium battery to provide brief bursts of power for acceleration.

In fact, thats the way most fuel cell vehicles work (fuel cells are expensive, so you use one as small as possible and use it at full power all the time, storing any excess in a regular battery)

I've been wondering the same. I'd be fine with a 350 mile range vehicle - it would cover more than 99.9% of all of my trips. It would be cheaper since presumably it would only need less than 1/2 of the batteries required to go 745 miles and also it would make the vehicle lighter. Not a lot of people actually need a vehicle capable of going 745 miles on a charge - most gas cars only go 400 to 500 miles on a tank of gas currently.