Munro is maybe not so far off the ball as he sounds. Car aero is all within a few % of each other for typically shaped vehicles, and I think the point he's making is that when the aero only accounts for a few %, then the other factors that are easily dealt with using plain engineering under the bodywork, such as reducing cable length, reducing the number of connectors, precision machining the motor, etc, they are now apparently accounting for an actual bigger difference than air resistance. No figures to back it up cited but I suspect he's on to something. There has to be a reason the Model 3 does so much better on range than, well, any of its competitors, per nominal kWh in the battery pack.
The astonishing efficiency of my SR/F is a testimony to the basic ideas he's outlined: I get, I think, 4x the mileage from the same energy as a Model 3, despite the SR/F flying through the air in exactly the same way bricks don't. Only one motor, a single belt, barely any voltage loss through lengthy cables, few connectors, great motor, tiny friction from wheels, and 1/7th the weight or so - despite having about 3x the drag coefficient. When we get over 70mph the tables are rapidly turned.
Cas