This study is missing two important metrics: time of typical journeys and method e.g. cycling. Most of my daily journeys last only 10 minutes by car. Cycling (if it were safe and practical for me) would be life-changing because so many places without car parking are only 10-15 minutes away. So duration and method matter, as do safety, comfort and weather.

This car will prove the law of diminishing returns applies to ever heavier batteries. If this range is not achieved by the lightweight battery they claim they have, it will never leave China. Any sign of excessive weight, poor handling and reduced braking will be seen as a liability and not an asset. I also wonder if the vast resources they have thrown at autonomy will be wasted? With "only" 90 Kwh however (and without the taxi sign on its roof) it would be rather good.

Once range exceeds 300 miles owners will get to a point where less time is spent "filling-up" en route than they did with ICE. Home and destination charging may allow users to drive without ever again visiting an unplanned location. The charging stations we see everywhere will be as unused and out of date as a fuel pump. And with induction charging, their fast filler cap might stay closed for years!

How expensive will it be, and why is it only a level 3-4 sensor? Musk thinks level 5 is possible with cheap cameras, so why is a lidar sensor aiming lower?

Ammonia is a highly toxic substance. If a gas tanker powered by it were to explode in a port, how many people could die? The worst case scenario could be like the recent Beirut explosion and the Bhopal disaster merged into one nightmare scenario. How is it possible to ensure the safety of a fuel like ammonia?

The safety of gas ships is always an issue. But the horrific toxicity of ammonia suggests to me that it can never be allowed to become the default green method of powering commercial shipping. "Impossible" collisions still happen, as do sinkings near population centres. How can vessels like these ever be truly safe?

Why is the safety of ammonia never discussed? I have experienced ammonia vapor and it horrifically nasty, even in tiny concentrations. It attacks the airways and eyes, making breathing and vision almost impossible. In bulk it could be devastingly toxic and kill like a nuclear explosion if powerfully dispersed to air. IMO, no ship transporting it or using it as fuel could ever be allowed to dock anywhere near a major city. The risk of terrorism alone should forbid it. The risk of corrosion in older vessels and collisions is too high IMO to ever allow these ships to become commonplace unless the safety design is literally bomb-proof.

Similar ICE companies own the Ionity charging network. Their 500% price increase shows they want to force up recharging prices everywhere. I have no doubt the Enevate batteries will be first seen on hybrids built using the old ICE platforms they are determined to keep in production. Nissan, Renault etc will restrict BEV production until the last possible moment. The ICE giants will continue to do this until they have no choice, or go bust. Just like Kodak, Polaroid, Xerox....

What a disastrous concept this is. Not for its technical specs (which do not read as sci-fi), but the styling subtext of making a 4x4 look like a Mars rover. It screams out that off-road EVs are excitingly futuristic, whereas this will soon be a reality in a market VW have no intention of competing in. Competitors are even taking orders for their designs! VW product planners must think the Rivian, Bollinger and Tesla Truck are such small-fry (compared to their overwhelming hugeness) that they can be playful and put their competition off to the far future when styling like this will be the norm. The German car industry has so much investment in ICE production it is looking on the EV revolution with rabbit in the headlight ignorance. It will all end in tears.

The importance of this is obvious. Goodwood has been a petrol head cathedral for decades. When the all-time record falls to an EV, the reverberation will spread far and wide. How long before the old petrol record falls to a road legal EV? Five years? Or even sooner?

Confusion reigns over its recharging speed. Tesla quote 1000 MPH for its latest/best combo. But the Honda appears to add less than 200 MPH, which is problematic in a car with such short range. A 200 mile highway journey would be more bearable with a few minutes recharge instead of half an hour or more.

Proteon have published suspension design studies showing that it's un-sprung mass is well within the control parameters of conventional suspension design. I suspect the first applications will be commercial vehicles and off-roaders, but eventually it's packaging advantages will be too hard to ignore for innovative small car designers.

This study seems to assume long range (future) BEVs will have batteries manufactured with the same inefficiencies as today. But is that possible to predict, or even likely? If a BEV is charged mostly by renewables, surely that would tip the balance back in their favour? Also, BEVs have usable lifespans that are many times longer than ICE-engined vehicles. When you factor in their innate longevity and ability to be fueled mostly with renewable energy over a greatly extended lifetime, surely the BEV would win the lifetime emissions comparison?

The Model 3 has to be a success, so is likely to be the most conservatively engineered of all Teslas. It therefore should be the most reliable Tesla and have high resale values as long as they use their tried and trusted solutions. However, if Tesla choose this model to debut untried technology (new chemistry batteries, advanced super capacitors, compact hub motors etc) then their customers and the brand will suffer the inevitable consequences.

Tilting vehicles are normally man-wide so that they can navigate and park like motorcycles. But the moment they reach micro-car width and size they lose these advantages. So why tilt at all? Also, tilters tend to have a very hard ride and only work well on ultra smooth surfaces. So in the real world, this concept looks to be somewhat short of comfort, logic or desirability.