RE: 100 mile range!
I am not trying to be argumentative but:
1) on flat terrain, nothing beats a good cruise control. Not in a coal fueled car, oops, an ICE car (as it avoids the extra fuel injected when powering up) as in an EV, as it avoids cycle losses through. I can personally vow for this.
2) on mountainous terrain what I hear my co-Zoe-drivers report is that driving there in itself does not really affect their range much (as long as you end your trip "low", hehe, you have to be able to reach the top!). That tells me nothing about using cruise control there of course, though it suggest it's influence in general is low, due to regeneration of course (d'uh!). My personal experience is no better than "hilly-ish", so I will refrain from stating this as "proven".
3) The general truths about 65 being far more inefficient than 45 (or 55!) holds here too of course, but don't forget there are two effects here:
a) more losses in all components when current goes up, partly compensated by the shorter time that current is flowing. I expect this effect to be only marginally better when not using CC, as the bad effect of going up (55 instead of 45) is partly compensated by going downhill slower. The losses count for regeneration too!
b) wind resistance goes up by the 2nd power (and a bit, if I am not mistaken). The 10 faster going down will have a more significant effect than the going up 10 slower. A constant speed is really better in general, resistance-wise.
I would love to see some experimental data!
ps: Now what is REALLY a bad idea is to use CC on a ICE car in mountenous terrain!