I'd take that even further. EVs make the most sense when all the conditions you noted are satisfied, _and_ the family can afford at least two cars, and it's not important that both cars have long range, and the family can afford the extra up-front cost of the EV. I've got a Nissan Frontier and a Nissan Leaf. The Leaf is older (2017) and has a degraded battery. (about 80% of its original life, and approximately 100 miles of range) The Leaf is very convenient for my wife, but primarily because she doesn't have a commute, and we have a more practical family car in situations where the EV won't cut it. Her mother lives with us, and also has a gas car as an additional backup.
We got the Leaf for $11k used, and if the EV were our only car we'd have had to spend significantly more on a car with much more range (at least 230 miles or more) and we'd have required the installation of a fast charger to handle the longer range. (120v charging is really pretty suitable for a car with only 100 miles of range.) All of these would have introduced significant costs and constraints, which were only offset by the very low price of a used Leaf, and the fact that we always have a backup option.
I meet all the requirements you listed, but I _also_ need to make a 310 mile trip (1 way) fairly regularly. In a Prius, I can do that on one tank. In an EV, you've added at least 30-60 minutes to each leg of the trip, unless you spring for higher end models.
So you're saying EVs make the most sense for "people who buy cars?"
Can't fault manufacturers for targeting that audience.
Anyway you are pulling on the thread of unique selling points (USPs) which are among the many prevailing traditions in autos sales. I don't know how much they really matter in a secular sense.
Not really. I'm saying that currently an EV fills a relatively small niche. For buyers without that specific niche requirement, an EV is usually overly expensive, or represents a pretty serious compromise in capability.
> I'm saying that currently an EV fills a relatively small niche.
You own two cars. Your family unit uses 3. You are the market. You are not the niche!
Think about personalization (upgrading trim). There are many fewer people who are interested in / need an expensive specific set of trim, but that's like 40% of auto industry profits. What you are calling a niche is the autos business.
Anyway most of the rest of the profits are financing, which is also all about getting people to buy cars every year or two or buy more than 1 car.
That said Tesla is so exceptional in their profitability. It remains to be seen if that's an outlier that will revert to the mean. They still derive significant profits from trim/personalization, like charging $5,000 more for sometimes literally disabling a software lock. But they also derive profits unlike other autos manufacturers from, essentially, subsidies and related, and for delivering Fisher Price fit and finish at Lexus prices. They recently started paying for advertising, which cost Toyota $1b a year for the decade Tesla hasn't been doing it, so I assume they will revert in everything else too.
So are EVs exceptional regarding their role, profitability etc. in the autos product mix? IMO no. If Tesla reverts to the mean, this is 100% true, and if it doesn't they are the exception to the rule.
We got the Leaf for $11k used, and if the EV were our only car we'd have had to spend significantly more on a car with much more range (at least 230 miles or more) and we'd have required the installation of a fast charger to handle the longer range. (120v charging is really pretty suitable for a car with only 100 miles of range.) All of these would have introduced significant costs and constraints, which were only offset by the very low price of a used Leaf, and the fact that we always have a backup option.