This is very silly.

I'm ok with advocacy groups advocating for their constituents, even when, as here, the advocacy is ridiculous.

My problem is that this ridiculous advocacy was effective and agree with comments that interpret this as a systemic issue.

If our system produces representatives that are persuaded by advocates of the ridiculous, our system is flawed.

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but your interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is inaccurate. States are permitted to regulate commerce within their state, even if it impacts interstate commerce. However, if the federal government decided to regulate, their law would preempt the state law to the extent they overlap.

I think the air/metal idea is very interesting and dissenters are prematurely ruling out an idea that's still in its infancy.

However, the most interesting idea in this article is of a secondary/replaceable car battery.

Car makers would be far more capable of producing a no-compromise electric car if they could build in only regularly-used range and provide rarely-used range via a secondary battery that plugs into the car and charges the primary battery while in use a la the Mophie iPhone case. Why reduce efficiency by always carrying additional battery weight when you could simply toss it in whenever needed and potentially swap out at Tesla stations as you go?

You wouldn't even need to recharge. Just swap out and charge while you drive!

I don't agree with comment regarding the disk player. It's akin to complaining about the lack of a tape player/cigarette lighter at the turn of the century.

If you're interested in the potential for the electric driving experience, watch this (posted last week on this site): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IElqf-FCMs8

According to the linked site, the first mass marketed hybrid car was released by Audi in 1997. If you shifted hybrids back 3 years, electric wins even if you start at Tesla 2008.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

1997

Audi became the first manufacturer in Europe to take a hybrid vehicle into volume production: the Audi duo based on the A4 Avant. The vehicle was powered by a 90 horsepower 1.9-litre TDI in conjunction with a 29 horsepower electric motor. Both power sources drove the front wheels. A lead-gel battery at the rear stored the electrical energy. The Duo was not a commercial success and therefore discontinued, prompting European carmakers to focus their R&D investment on diesels.

http://www.hybridcars.com/history-of-hybrid-vehicles

I don't see a problem with quoting from a forum. If accurately quoted and used in a contextually accurate manner, what basis is there for complaint?

In terms of practical application, I disagree with your point about coasting being more efficient. Driving with high regenerative breaking in the Volt causes me to begin slowing earlier and, thereby, allows me to recapture more energy then I would through a later, harder break that's beyond the maximum regenerative breaking level.

One more thing: isn't Tesla providing BMW their technology? If so, they should negotiate for the same offer of gas BMW loaners to their purchasers.

I think this idea is fantastic and wonder why other companies don't do the same (e.g. Nissan). This is a perfect stop gap while we all wait for battery tech and the charge network to improve to a level that allows electric to replace gas. I know it seems small, but I think this is a hugely important development.