I'm not arguing the original point (that this is not a particularly useful test of range), but I'm curious why you would assume air resistance in the tunnel to be less than air resistance in "the real world". It's a tunnel, not a vacuum. If anything, air pressure/resistance is higher in the tunnel. I know they have pressure release valves for the trains, but I doubt they have those in the service tunnel (which was used in this video).The air resistance in the tunnel (vs. real world) the lack of traffic in the tunnel. The fact that they could do the best range MPH in the tunnel.. (usually around 40-45) whole thing wreaks of legacy car maker BS.
200 miles is exactly what I want. The Bolt is rated at 238, and I got 200 per charge driving as fast and as inefficiently as I want. I don't ever want to have to worry about power usage in a car, and 200 miles real world range does it for me. I never go more than about 160 in a day, unless it's a long trip where I'll be taking the big gas guzzler anyway. EVs are still city cars for the foreseeable future, even Teslas. So if the I-Pace delivers a solid 200 miles, that works for me. If it's less, I'd pass and wait for something better - life is just too short to waste any of it on range anxiety.Yeah, I see a lot of discussion, especially on UK site, questioning the merits of this test. The steady erosion of initial range claims is disappointing, to be sure. So, folks will simply need to assess whether they can live with daily ~200 miles, and perhaps stretching for longer runs. For me, 200+ will likely comprise no more than 5 out of hundreds of trips per year. . .
Tesla has been offering some fairly serious discounts on inventory Model S and X's the last few weeks as well.Clearly, for long, long, long range drivers, the i-Pace isn't the best choice. Go get a Tesla 100D, a diesel sedan, or a small engined, efficiency geared pickup with a 30+ gallon tank.