Currently there is no reason to put transmissions into EV's. More money should be put into the improvement of electric motors and battery tech. People care about range and reliability. While acceleration is awesome, Tesla can already achieve sub 2.5s 0-60 which is more than most anyone can handle. Adding a transmission to an EV just adds one more thing to fail and replace fluid every few years.
In what way is "better on track" a bad reason? Lots of cars have features which are only really useful on a track, are all of these cars needlessly complex?
That's a different opinion than the one being expressed and therefore the I'm discussing. The argument I'm talking about is the one which claims, "There is no advantage to a two-speed transmission". You seem to be saying that the advantages of such a transmission are bad reasons to build it.
> the one which claims, "There is no advantage to a two-speed transmission"
The post does not say those words.
The discussion of how Tesla can "already" achieve a fast 0-60 is a pretty clear acknowledgement that the number can be improved. But there's "no reason" because it's already so good, and there are important downsides.
That's all paraphrasing the post itself. It is not the blatantly false technical argument that you imagine.
And the post I made earlier was not a novel argument. It was taking "no [good] reason" and using that to classify a couple obvious "reasons" as not good. A very small logical step.
