Forums

3 New EV (Tesla) World Records

3 New EV (Tesla) World Records

Carl Reese, Deena Mastracci and Alex Roy

1. Fastest time from LA to NYC
Time: 57:49 (besting 58:55 earlier this year)

2. First Semi-Autonomous Vehicle from LA to NYC
Time: 57:49 (Autopilot 96.1% of the time)

3. DTC or Double Transcontinental LA to NYC to LA in an EV
Time: 6 Days 6 hours 22 Minutes
Besting Dan Edmunds and Kurt Niebuhr time set in 2014 of 6 days 23 hours 4 Minutes.
Return Leg (NYC to LA) Drivers were Mastracci and Reese.

Drone footage of the event Dayton, Ohio Supercharger - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Q3XHXQsMk

One of many stories on line

http://www.businessinsider.com/3-people-just-crossed-the-us-in-an-autopi...

Twitter EVRecordAttempt or P85Ddeena
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/EVRecordAttempt

Notaries at both ends, GPS Tracking and Press witnesses at both ends.

DonS | 26 October, 2015

Speed records using public roads are a very poor idea. After one group drives at crazy speeds beyond the legal limit, it just encourages the next group to drive even crazier.

Larry@SoCal | 26 October, 2015

I have to agree with DonS. These stunts demonstrate that Tesla has arrived but there is too much danger involved. Yes, the next group will drive harder to beat the record, and so on.
~Larry

james.nicklin | 27 October, 2015

Except it has already been shown that driving over ~70 decreases speed over distance as you spend too much time charging. Or do these records not include charging times?

JuJoo | 27 October, 2015

They do record charging times.

Alex Roy also did the same trip in a 2004 Mercedes CL55 AMG in 28 hours 50 minutes.

Since charging is what takes more times than refueling, the trip is still pretty long compared to ICE's. I don't think these speed trips are not about driving speed. It's about showing the discrepancy of times between EVs and ICEs.

Once charging times are improved, we should see this gap slowly close. I think that's what this is about. Not because the next group will try to travel faster. These are seasoned transcontinental travelers, not speed racers.

Earl and Nagin ... | 27 October, 2015

@james.nicklin,
Not true actually. With very fast charging times, faster driving yields shorter driving times.
There is a point of diminishing returns for any charge rate but it is way above 70 mph with 90 kW supercharging.

Grinnin'.VA | 27 October, 2015

@ JuJoo | October 27, 2015

>> Once charging times are improved, we should see this gap slowly close. <<

^^ When should we expect that to happen? Soon?

@ Earl and Nagin ... | October 27, 2015 new

>> There is a point of diminishing returns for any charge rate but it is way above 70 mph with 90 kW supercharging. <<

^^ Maybe. Please explain. BTW, do you have any real-world data on SC charging times for the 90D?

JuJoo | 27 October, 2015

@Grinnin

Hence, we should see this gap slowly close. :) So, yes, "soon."

SamO | 27 October, 2015

The gap between gas and electricity will not be bridged until the 1000 mile battery arrives.

The record was broken with gas stored in the trunk.

"Ed Bolian went into preparation mode about 18 months ago and chose a Mercedes CL55 AMG with 115,000 miles for the journey. The Benz's gas tank was only 23 gallons, so he added two 22-gallon tanks in the trunk, upping his range to about 800 miles. The spare tire had to go in the backseat with his spotter, Dan Huang, a student at Georgia Tech, Bolian's alma mater. The total time: 28 hours, 50 minutes and about 30 seconds.

When they were moving, all but 46 minutes of the trip, they were averaging around 100 mph. Their total average was 98 mph, and their top speed was 158 mph, according to an onboard tracking device."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/new-york-los-angeles-cannonball-speed-r...

Earl and Nagin ... | 27 October, 2015

@Grinnin,
It doesn't matter what the charging speed for the 90D is.
Charging at 90Kw will charge at about the same speed (miles/hour) whether you're charging a 90D, an S70, or a Nissan Leaf 24. Its a function of charging power X miles/kwhr at the particular speed being driven. The mile/kWhr, of course, increases with the velocity squared.
Driving time is a function of the speed driven. You're welcome to run the numbers at different driving speeds and figure out what driving speed gets you to your destination faster.

Mike83 | 27 October, 2015

Temperature is also a factor. Does anyone have equations to plug in the numbers? I would guess at lower Temps charging is faster but kWh/mile would increase.
Side note; ICE vehicles also have reduced mpg especially since energy is required to keep the catalytic converter hot enough to function.

georgehawley.fl.us | 27 October, 2015

Even with 120 kW Superchargers, the Model S can't average more than about 57 mph overall. Optimum speed for 150 mile SC stops is approximately 75 mph without taking into account terrain and wind.

Earl and Nagin ... | 27 October, 2015

@Georgehawley,
Can you back that assertion up with math? Experimentation? I don't see it. Where are you getting your KWh/mile at 75 mph?

georgehawley.fl.us | 27 October, 2015

Yes, I can post the back-up at your peril:-))

I used charge rate data published by @kman for data that he and Bjorn Nyland obtained independently for the 85kwh pack with excellent agreement. For energy usage I relied on a blog post by Elon and JB Straubel. I wrote a little think piece about the analysis. Here is an excerpt:

Let's say you put a 90 kWh battery pack in a Model S, charge it up "x"% full at home and drive 150 miles at "v" mph to a Supercharger. The only variables available are the speed that you drive and how fully you charge the battery pack at home before setting off. Here's what you get for average speed per leg including just replacing the charge used.

AVERAGE SPEED PER LEG WITH X% INITIAL CHARGE, DRIVING V MPH

V x= 60%. 78%. 89%. 100%

60 mph 49 mph 48 mph 47 mph 42 mph

65 mph 51 mph 50 mph 49 mph 44 mph

70 mph 54 mph 53 mph 52 mph 46 mph

75 mph 56 mph 55 mph 54 mph 47 mph

80 mph 57 mph 55 mph 52 mph 44 mph

As you can see, the best you can do under these ideal conditions is less than 60 mph per leg by driving an average of 80 mph or less. At 80 you would use 60 kWh of energy. Any faster and you have to put more juice in the pack than 67% of 90 kWh and you would lose more charging time than you would gain by driving faster. (You might also get a ticket or two.). Notice that 75 mph is actually faster than 80 mph if you start out with 80 kWh or more in the battery pack because of the charging nonlinearity. Notice also that you go faster if you skimp on the initial charge to arrive at the SD with a nearly empty battery pack. On the other hand imagine starting out with a 90 kWh charge, squeaking out 300 miles in a Model S90D, arriving with just a few Lithium ions left in the pack. Charging back up to 90 kWh could take 1.5 to 2 hours. The average speed for the leg would be only about 52 mph or less because the long charging time.

Etc.

Is that enough?

georgehawley.fl.us | 27 October, 2015

The table didn't paste well The left hand column lists the driving speeds for each 150 mile leg.

Earl and Nagin ... | 27 October, 2015

@George Hawley,
Thanks for showing the work.
I did my math assuming 100 mile trip and different charging rates. I also initially used my own extrapolation of energy consumption assuming consumption is proportional to the velocity squared. This, of course, doesn't take fixed parasitics into account so I just computed again with the Straubel and Musk energy consumption graphs at http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range. I assumed full charger rate of 120KW for charging. Taking energy consumption of 337 Wh/mile at 70 mph and 400 Wh/mile at 80 mph, it will take 33.7 and 40 kWhr of electricity to go 100 miles at 70 and 80 mph respectively. At a charging rate of 120 kW, charging times will be 0.28 and 0.33 h with driving times of 1.4 and 1.3 h . This leads to total times of 1.71 h and 1.58 h respectively for 70 mph and 80 mph, correlating to 58.5 mph and 63.2 mph average speeds. This shows that you get there faster at 80 mph than at 70 mph.
Since the Straubel and Musk curve tops out at 80 mph, I can't show what happens above 80 mph without my own extrapolation for energy consumption. My own optimum ends up at around 100 mph before your excess energy consumption overpowers your charge rate.
In the real world, of course, your mileage will vary depending on drive length, time from full speed to supercharger, temperatures, winds, hills, waiting for locals hogging the supercharger, etc.
All fun math and a whole lot safer than racing on the interstates :-)

Ross1 | 27 October, 2015

There should be a law against going over the speed limit.

Grinnin'.VA | 28 October, 2015

@ SamO | October 27, 2015 new

>> The gap between gas and electricity will not be bridged until the 1000 mile battery arrives.

>> The record was broken with gas stored in the trunk. ... When they were moving, all but 46 minutes of the trip, they were averaging around 100 mph. Their total average was 98 mph, and their top speed was 158 mph, according to an onboard tracking device." <<

^^ Thanks for giving details of the dangerous behavior required to contend for this record.

Earl and Nagin ... | October 27, 2015

>> @Grinnin,
>> It doesn't matter what the charging speed for the 90D is. <<

^^ I believe you're sadly mistaken. Suppose the 90D drives 150 miles per leg at 75 mph. That would require 2 hour of driving time. Now, suppose it charges at a rate of 300 range miles per hour. Then it would take 30 minutes to charge it enough for the next leg. The total time per leg (driving plus charging) would be 2.5 hours. The average speed would then be (150 miles / 2.5 hours) 60 mph. Alternatively, suppose this 90D charges at a congested SC, paired with another MS charging from the same charger. Possibly its charging rate might be only 150 range miles per hour. If so, it would take a full hour to recharge the battery for the next leg. Then the average speed drop to 50 mph.

>> You're welcome to run the numbers at different driving speeds and figure out what driving speed gets you to your destination faster. <<

^^ I think I'll do that when I see enough independently verified SC charging data for the 90-kWh batteries.
[Note: the data shown on the Tesla site for the 85-kWh battery were found by Bjorn and others to be rather optimistic.]

@ Earl and Nagin ... | October 27, 2015

>> My own optimum ends up at around 100 mph before your excess energy consumption overpowers your charge rate. <<

^^ I strongly believe you've got a mistake in your calculation.

>> In the real world, of course, your mileage will vary depending on drive length, time from full speed to supercharger, temperatures, winds, hills, waiting for locals hogging the supercharger, etc. <<

^^ Of course, you're right.

Except that IMO you throw in a gratuitous poison arrow aimed at "locals".
AFAIK, you're far more likely to be delayed at SCs by:

ICE cars parked in SC stalls, or
MS cars on road trips remaining in SC stalls after charging their batteries enough for their next leg.

Why did you throw that zinger in, polluting this discussion?

georgehawley.fl.us | 28 October, 2015

@Earl: In a separate analysis, assuming an 85 kWh pack and 100 mile charging intervals, I got an optimum speed of around 90 mph as I recall. It's straightforward to extrapolate energy consumption above 80 mph. Just multiply the air friction contribution at 80 by the ratio of the square of the higher velocity to 6400.

As to battery capacity, my estimate is that with a 135 kWh pack in a 3200 pound car driving 75 miles per hour for 300 miles between 150 kW SCs, starting with about 85 kWh in the "tank" and just replacing the 75 kWh used, you could average about 67 mph under ideal conditions which would start to be competitive with ICEVs that aren't tricked up and drive the speed limit or close thereto.

There's no road map for battery development to get to such a battery pack. Battery development is not like Moore's so-called law that relies on predictable shrinkage in IC device dimensions. With batteries it's more trial and error. Let's try a little more Silicon in the anode and test the result for a few years. Oh, that didn't work, what else can we change?

A 3200 pound Tesla will be an achievement as well. 150 kW SC is straightforward.

Earl and Nagin ... | 28 October, 2015

@georgehawley,
I definitely agree that the average speed is a big issue with EVs. I suspect batteries that can handle faster may eventually happen but I'm not sure the market will drive them for seldom usage.
I suspect pack swap will be the preferred least overall cost for super fast driving.
Remember thought that AAA always assumes 50 mph average for ICE driving, taking stops into account. Therefore, I'm not convinced EVs need to do too much better to be competitive with ICE in normal usage. I note that even ICEs needed special modifications from the stock configurations for the record cannonball run.

Brian H | 28 October, 2015

george;
use the <pre> tag to enable fixed format for tables. Font will be reduced.

Timo | 29 October, 2015

pre combined with one of the header tags makes pretty good fixed width table. Forgot which header tag it was though. Those are not in size -order.

Grinnin'.VA | 29 October, 2015

@ georgehawley.fl.us | October 28, 2015

>> @Earl: In a separate analysis, assuming an 85 kWh pack and 100 mile charging intervals, I got an optimum speed of around 90 mph as I recall. <<

^^ This conflicts with my analysis and with what Tesla has claimed.
Can you please share the details of your analysis?
Please include the following information:

SOC assumed when the car arrives at an SC
Charging time and SOC when the car finishes charging
Wh/mi while driving

Since you say that 90 mph was the optimum speed, I presume you considered alternative speeds of 80 mph and 100 mph or some similar speeds. Please provide the information items listed above for each speed you considered.

Finally, one more question: Did you use the charging curve results from Bjorn's videos?

Earl and Nagin ... | 29 October, 2015

@Grinnin,

No time to put long, detailed answers together. SOC at arrival = consumption times 100 miles. Charging time used was ideal (kWhr/kW ), not from Bjorn videos. Wh/mi from the Straubel/Musk table in the Tesla blog.

georgehawley.fl.us | 29 October, 2015

Sorry, Ron, I did a quick calculation in a post on Bjorn's thread in response to a trip he made where the SCs were closer together than in the US.
If I dug through the hundreds of posts in his thread, I might find my post but I don't recall recording the details of the analysis. I did document the assumptions for the 150 mile intervals above because that is closer to Tesla's US model.
At any SC interval there is a driving speed at which the overall trip speed starts to go down because at some point the increase in charging time is greater than the reduction in driving interval. The closer the SCs, the higher the speed at which the optimum overall time is achieved.

You are welcome to make an independent calculation to test the result.

Obviously, the results are interesting because they demonstrate the charging time/driving speed trade off but in real world driving there are variables like elevation change, passenger weight, wind, and precipitation that come into play. In addition there are speed limits to observe.

It looks to me like Tesla did this analysis, probably more rigorously, a long time ago and based the 150 mile SC interval because it has produced the best trip results based on US speed limits and Model S85 charging rate profile.

The analysis is also interesting because it highlights the major challenges ahead for Tesla engineers with respect to battery capacity vs weight, overall weight and efficiency requirements to approach parity, the value of higher SC power limit, and costs to be achieved to be able to price cars competitively to ICEVs. I'm convinced that Toyota assessed these challenges and abandoned BEVs because they couldn't come up with a predictable solution. Road trip performance will be the last big obstacle to the ability of BEVs to replace ICEVs, once Tesla gets the battery and overall vehicle costs down by a factor of two. Until that time, BEVs will gradually displace ICEVs but not replace them.

You could argue that battery pack replacement is the answer because it easily rivals filling a gas tank but the capital costs to install replacement stations all over the place would be enormous just as will building out hydrogen refill stations.

georgehawley.fl.us | 29 October, 2015

@brian: thanks. I am HTML impaired.:-((

Grinnin'.VA | 30 October, 2015

@ Earl and Nagin ... | October 29, 2015

>> No time to put long, detailed answers together. SOC at arrival = consumption times 100 miles. <<

^^ Sorry, but we seem to be using "SOC" to mean different things. As I understand the term, it stands for "state of charge". It might be expressed as a percentage of a full battery charge or "range miles". In either case it describes how much charge is in the battery. "at arrival" means when the car arrives at a charging stop. SC charging times follow a curve. Hence, one needs to know the starting SOC as well as the amount (kWh) of charge to determine the time needed for a charging stop.

>> Charging time used was ideal (kWhr/kW ), not from Bjorn videos. Wh/mi from the Straubel/Musk table in the Tesla blog. <<

^^ I presume that Bjorn's videos demonstrate clearly that the ideal charging time information on Tesla's web site are optimistic. In the real world charging takes longer. My experience is closer to Bjorn's than Tesla's ideal charging curves.

georgehawley.fl.us | October 29, 2015

>> You are welcome to make an independent calculation to test the result. <<

^^ Shortly after Bjorn's videos were posted showing the charging curves minute by minute for an 85-kWh battery, I made a spreadsheet designed to do such calculations. However, (see above) it requires the SOC when the car arrives at the SC as well as the amount of charge needed. Can you please tell us what you consider to be an appropriate SOC when the car arrives at an SC to charge?

With that along with the Wh/mi vs speed from the Tesla blob, or possibly with some additional allowance for elevation change, weight, wind, temperature, I can calculate the charging times.

>> It looks to me like Tesla did this analysis, probably more rigorously, a long time ago and based the 150 mile SC interval because it has produced the best trip results based on US speed limits and Model S85 charging rate profile. <<

^^ I do not question the technical proficiency of Tesla's experts on these matters. However, it seems clear to me that the information on Tesla's web site are slanted for marketing purposes. To portray the capabilities of the car in the best possible light.

>>You could argue that battery pack replacement is the answer because it easily rivals filling a gas tank ... <<

^^ I'd argue that if Tesla deployed battery swap stations with the swap speed and swap pricing consistent with what they suggested in the battery-swap announcement event, this could be attractive to many users. Evidently, for the reasons you mention, it seems that Tesla has decided to abandon that battery-swap capability as impractical. Of course, in the B-S event, they didn't say that owners would need to make reservations for B-S appointments.

georgehawley.fl.us | 30 October, 2015

Ron: Do you blame them for putting their best foo forward? At least they didn't put up numbers derived from a downhill run with a tailwind:-))

Re: SOC: For least charging time one would like to have the battery depleted just as you pull up to the SC and then charge it just enough to replace the charge used in the leg just completed. To be more realistic I think I had it pull up to the SC with 10 kWh in the pack. I bow to your superior judgment on that.

Earl and Nagin ... | 30 October, 2015

@Grinnin'
Yes, you are basically right. I just did a 1st order computation that disputed suggestions that 75 mph might be the maximum optimal speed. I waste way too much time (that I don't have) on this forum already to spend time on higher resolution computations.
We agree on SOC definitions. I guess I should have said that I assume SOC at arrival to be that which gets me optimal charging speed. This is probably near 0% SOC.
I wouldn't say that Tesla has given up on the battery swap idea. I'd say that in light of overwhelming evidence that it might not be cost effective they're taking very rational and measured steps toward figuring out without breaking the bank by committing to it like Better Place did. They deployed it in what is IMHO the most prime location in the world to test it out. They invested enough to determine the viability. The priced it with a good, realistic idea of what the market might bear. They offer 24 hour access. The only unfortunate 'price' is that they had to make it by appointment. To me, this is quite an awesome job of balancing perfect with good-enough.

Grinnin'.VA | 30 October, 2015

@ georgehawley.fl.us | October 30, 2015

>> Ron: Do you blame them for putting their best foo forward? <<

^^ No. I blame them from burying information about the inconvenient details that make the ideal charging times a bit unrealistic.

>> To be more realistic I think I had it pull up to the SC with 10 kWh in the pack. I bow to your superior judgment on that. <<

^^ I'll update my calculations for the 85D using my formula fit Bjorn video data. For the SOC on arrival at the SCs, I'll pick a couple of convenient numbers that are easy to use. For non-ideal driving conditions, I'd like to consider 5%-10% higher numbers than those shown in the JBS blog. Does that sound reasonable to you?

@ Earl and Nagin ... | October 30, 2015

>> @Grinnin'
>> Yes, you are basically right. ... We agree on SOC definitions. ... I should have said that I assume SOC at arrival to be that which gets me optimal charging speed. This is probably near 0% SOC. <<

^^ Yes, 0% SOC does indeed lead to the minimum charging times. OTHO, I think it would be fool hardy to intentionally try to arrive at SCs with the battery drained. That might well leave you on the side of the road, calling for a tow truck if you got the wind, temperature, or other potential adverse effect a bit off.

georgehawley.fl.us | 30 October, 2015

One shouldn't confuse idealized calculations with real world conditions. The ideal case helps develop an understanding and quantification of the key underlying challenges for BEV road trip performance: car weight, battery pack energy density limitations, cost challenges and battery charging behavior.

In the real world one would be somewhat foolhardy or Norwegian (:-)) to arrive at the SC with just barely enough charge left to avoid bricking the pack and then just charge barely enough to reach the next SC.

I think that the idealized case is sufficient to show why BEVs can't yet approach the road trip average speed of an ordinary ICEV and help quantify, albeit roughly, how far off the BEVs are. Elon is on the case but the challenges would daunt Hercules let alone "Tony Stark". They certainly sent Toyota running in the other direction.

MountainVoyageur | 30 October, 2015

Charging at 90Kw will charge at about the same speed (miles/hour) whether you're charging a 90D, an S70, or a Nissan Leaf 24.

True, but misleading -- that statement assumes a constant charging rate. In fact, charging is done at 1.X C (if you want long battery life). C is much larger for a 70 kWh battery than for the Leaf, and larger yet for the 90 kWh battery.

Assuming a well designed Supercharger with enough power, larger batteries can be charged to a given number of miles faster because the larger battery has, by definition, a proportionally larger "C" and thus can be charged at a higher rate without degrading the battery.

The other factor favoring a larger battery (when charging to a large percent of the miles a smaller battery can handle) is that the smaller battery will have its charging tapered a significant number of miles before the larger battery will.

--MV

Earl and Nagin ... | 31 October, 2015

@MountainVoyageur
The statement "Charging at 90Kw will charge at about the same speed (miles/hour) whether you're charging a 90D, an S70, or a Nissan Leaf 24" is completely correct but they are the asymptote of the performance curve, not the currently realizable point. The issue is whether the 90D, S70, or Nissan Leaf 24 are actually capable of charging at 90Kw. Those are separable issues that one can focus on improving to get closer to the ideal.
@georgehawley
I fully agree that 1st principles, ideal case analysis can't be used to indicate guaranteed real-world activities. There's also, of course, margin that the prudent will add on as well. However, it does allow one to understand and break down relationships into separable problems to look at. One can often also look at where and why reality deviates from 1st principles and try to understand and control the factors that cause the deviations.
I've been driving EVs for over a decade and, had I and others decided that the Gen 1 Pb-A EV1 was the last word in EVs, we wouldn't have kept our eyes open and been willing to purchase an early Tesla Roadster which was even further along but still not the end. Even a 2015 P85D,I,L,AP with battery swap probably isn't the final chapter in EV improvements. We don't exactly know where or when things will improve but one can be sure they will if Tesla is driving them. They probably won't improve beyond theoretical ideal conditions but they may approach them if various issues such as battery life, thermal management, and charging current taper improve.

Grinnin'.VA | 31 October, 2015

@ georgehawley.fl.us | October 30, 2015

>> I think that the idealized case is sufficient to show why BEVs can't yet approach the road trip average speed of an ordinary ICEV and ... <<

^^ I think you're correct.

Red Sage ca us | 31 October, 2015

There is a lot of empty road between Los Angeles and New York City.

Al1 | 31 October, 2015

I think that the idealized case is sufficient to show why BEVs can't yet approach the road trip average speed of an ordinary ICEV and ...

I think we should not discount the fact that electric miles come way cheaper. This will play an ever increasing role as autonomous driving on highways kicks in and gains in popularity.

milesbb | 1 November, 2015

I would like to see a documented cross country run done in a BEV and ICE, the run documented not to have exceeded the posted speed limit by more then 3%, no stop signs or stop lights violated. Seems like a record that Guinness could certify. It take real skill to not violate traffic laws. Meeting this criteria would give a more realistic comparison between ICE and BEV travel times. An IQ test of the driver(s) at completion would also be telling.

Earl and Nagin ... | 1 November, 2015

The issue is what I'll refer to as "lollygagging" on the trip versus 'making time'. I've travelled both ways at different times. My impression is that most people don't make road trips. Of those who do, most "lollygag" along, stopping for a coke, a bathroom break, a hamburger, etc, whenever the urge hits and there's an opportunity to stop. Fewer 'make time'; reducing stops to a bare minimum and multitasking them as much as possible. Even fewer 'make time' obsessively with pee bottles or adult diapers but I'll discount them as being 0.01% extremists - cannonball runners are clearly closer to this category.
Of the types of road trippers listed above; EVs don't fit into any of the categories as well as today's ICE. However, the technology is fine today for the majority who "lallygag". The only possible shortcoming today is that it will require an increase in the number of Superchargers to where they are at most of the stopping places where one would have an urge to stop. California is pretty much there now for most of the places most "lollygagging" Californians go. Since my opinion is that most people who road trip "lollygag", EVs will be just fine for the foreseeable future. Then, as the "lollygaggers" switch to EVs for cost and overall practicality reasons, the number of gas stations that rely on their business will decrease. The fallout will be that the infrastructure that is required for the 'making time' folks will diminish to where they might just as well drive an EV too. Battery swap may or may not help the 'make time' crowd depending whether there is enough money (market or government) to sustain it but that still won't be competitive against today's hydrocarbon status quo.
Those few who 'make time' will always do better carrying as many kWh's of energy along as possible. Carbon-based fuel used in an ICE will likely provide the fastest travel energy for the foreseeable future based on energy storage capacities known today. I don't see anything with high energy density (Wh/liter), specific energy (Wh/kg), energy transfer rate (Wh/hour), or energy transfer handling ease (labor$/kWhr) that can come close to hydrocarbon fuel.
For the Hydrogen crowd: H2 has greater specific energy than hydrocarbons but very poor energy density and poor energy transfer rate. This makes it a difficult alternative even though it has about 3X the specific energy as diesel.

georgehawley.fl.us | 1 November, 2015

@Earl: right on. The prevalence of "lollygaggers" is why, over time, as acquisition cost is lowered, BEVs will continue to displace more and more ICEVs even if they can't fully replace them. Tesla is leading the way in this decades long transition.

Red Sage ca us | 7 November, 2015

The trip from Los Angeles to my Family Homestead in Mississippi is about 1,900 miles. I have done this in an ICE at about 28 hours multiple times. So, about 67.86 MPH on average, and that includes a stop for lunch or breakfast in El Paso.

Others in the Family take as much as 42 hours to do the same trip. That makes for a 45.24 MPH average speed.

I estimate that once Superchargers cover the distance by way of I-10 and I-20, the trip will take around 36 hours in a Tesla Motors product. 52.78 MPH on average is certainly acceptable.

But no... It will be quite some time before anyone with an EV breaks the rumored 19-to-22 hour splash-n-dash record for the trip that my Uncles claim they've managed in an ICE.