Because day after day and week after week, you will charge at superchargers really close to the place that you park your car at nearly every night. It doesn't have to be based on one use. It would be based on a pattern of usage. You might even get away with it for a whole two weeks before their system has determined you're doing the same thing every time you charge.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Because day after day and week after week, you will charge at superchargers really close to the place that you park your car at nearly every night. It doesn't have to be based on one use. It would be based on a pattern of usage. You might even get away with it for a whole two weeks before their system has determined you're doing the same thing every time you charge.
Their rational is that they're willing to upfront $37K for a cool electric car vs $25K for an equivalent sized sedan provided they can make back the difference over in what they would have spent on gasoline. At current gas prices, that's about 85K miles compared to a similarly sized sedan that get's 25 MPH and can accelerate from 0-60 in 6 seconds.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me in terms of rational.
Last edited:
People living in California's Central Valley and commuting nearly that far into the Bay Area to work every day?
I live in Merced, CA and drive to San Jose twice a week for work. The distance is 130 miles each way.
AndreSF
Member
I don't think it's unfair to pay for what you use (hopefully Tesla will price this fairly. IMO anything over 20 - 25 cents per Kwh would not be very reasonable). KWh approach makes sense over "time of use" of course. I'm wondering if Tesla now going to factor this new development into the price of new S & X cars, as previously unlimited for life supercharging was calculated into the price, so it's only fair to lower the price IF limited supercharging is now included.
There were some points in the thread about this new approach being a huge issue for ppl without home/work charging, but I actually think it's a much better approach. After all, folks without home charging have not spent anything on establishing charging infrastructure (perhaps they can't), so this gives them reliable way to pay for what they need to use.
There were some points in the thread about this new approach being a huge issue for ppl without home/work charging, but I actually think it's a much better approach. After all, folks without home charging have not spent anything on establishing charging infrastructure (perhaps they can't), so this gives them reliable way to pay for what they need to use.
Well tesla could increase the cost of the car significantly to enable free charging for everyone forever, or pay for what you use and the upfront cost will be less
I was quoting the $0.32 given as a price that would not make the electric vs gasoline worth the compromise. There was no math at all for that aspect of the claim.
For the math portion of my example, you're right, it was bad. I said 28 miles when I should have said 28.15 miles
But you missed post:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1819034/
Go back and read that and tell me if you ever think you'll get charging for less than $0.32 / kWh.
Hmmm, I don't get the connection. But I think the concern about utilities being the only ones to charge for electricity by the kwh is overblown. For starters, the "product" being sold can only be "consumed" by tesla vehicles, so there's really no utility-servicee relationship, but a product-customer relationship. The customer is not dependent on the Tesla supercharger network to provide energy for their cars (chargepoint, blink, friends & family can provide alternatives), so shouldn't be treated like a utility that has monopoly control. Tesla opening up the patents to their supercharger network ensures that competitors to that network can be created if someone so desires - this negates the monopoly argument.
Anyway, the exact argument doesn't matter, only that the concern of this limitation shouldn't be a major one.
KublaConn
Member
This doesn't fit into the proposed "geofence every SpC within 200 miles of your house" that the OP was advocating for and it also doesn't address the point of my question. If I leave my house on a long-distance trip, say I'm headed to a destination that is 477 miles from my home, I will naturally stop at the SpC that is 170 miles from my house, no? So, how would they determine if I'm on a long-distance trip or not if they don't know where I'm headed? Expecting Tesla to micromanage every trip that every Tesla owner takes is just a ridiculously unrealistic expectation. I would also posit that a 200-mile trip IS a long-distance trip, so setting such a long distance as your parameter is also unrealistic. I would also posit that a "long-distance trip" doesn't automatically translate to a linear distance from one's home. One can accumulate a high number of miles in one trip and not be further than 100 miles away from where you live. I live in Texas, trust me, we have a LOT of space here. The argument against local supercharging stands purely upon the issue of intent and intent alone. If you are doing it solely to take advantage of free electrons rather than out of necessity, then it is a infraction. This is why it is difficult to come up with an easy solution, because intent is always hard to determine. To suppose that no one will ever have a legitimate reason for needing to use a supercharger within 200 or 100 or even 50 miles from one's home would demonstrate that one hasn't completely considered the issue and that they may have a very narrow idea as to the purpose of the network and what constitutes a "long-distance" trip.
NYEVDriver
Member
I had an interesting conversation with a colleague who has a deposit on an M3. It was regarding how tesla would know how many times one uses a super charger. It seemed pretty simple to me since every time I plug my cars into a supercharger I get an alert via the app. Even if one doesn't have the app installed it is apparent that tesla already has a means of monitoring every time a car is plugged into a supercharger. The app alerts me when the car is almost fully charged and when charging is completed. So Tesla really does not have to do too much to enable accounting on information that is already available.
Then let them cancel. A tesla doesn't have to be the right car for everyone, just like how an EV isn't right for everyone. Some people's use cases will require that they get a different vehicle. The chevy Volts, Bolts, Yukon, and Silverado will do well despite the model 3 being on sale, because some people have different needs that the model 3 can't meet.
Frankly, Tesla shouldn't be targeting customers who are so price sensitive that they're depending on free super charging to justify the purchase of the car. The SC network is not cheap to build out, maintain, and provide power for. Tesla is likely paying significantly more than residential rates for their SC locations, and people who have to use the SCs constantly for free fuel to somehow justify the money spent on a car are going to clog up the current locations, necessitating the building of more locations and more stalls in each location, which adds to the costs. Tesla was never going to be able to provide free supercharging indefinitely, cost baked into the price of the car or not.
KublaConn
Member
You & I obviously hold differing opinions as to what "rational" & "reasonable" mean.
One thing I think we do probably agree on, though, is that these people aren't really in the market for an EV anyway.BTW, I believe you meant the noun "rationale", rather than the adjective "rational".
And I don't agree with a strict radius myself. Micromanaging isn't needed. Software can easily determine if you're repeatedly supercharging close to where you park you car over night most nights without traveling long distance. Once the pattern repeats enough times, they can warn you first. If you ignore it, then could could eventually disable supercharging access to those local superchargers.
There are legitimate cases for using local superchargers occasionally. Say I get home from a long commute and I'm about to head out of town on a long trip. I charge to say 90% at the supercharger rather than home because I need to leave much sooner than my home charger can. I then leave and go on my long trip. That usage doesn't fit the pattern and doesn't get added to the list of local charges without going on a long distance trip.
But if instead go home and don't leave, that charge becomes a possible abuse. Still, once is not enough. I might have had my trip canceled for some unforeseeable reason. But if I repeat this pattern over and over, then it should eventually trigger an abuse flag.
The distance should be more like 50 miles, and people who want to road trip all time, stop expecting it to be free. Pay for what you use.
Exactly, I already tried to discourage them from placing a reservation based on this rational. Not that their rational wasn't logical, but it encourages abuse of the SC system which I do not support.
Hopefully there won't be an unlimited option unless it's something high like $10K upfront. And then they'll cancel like they should.
That's why Tesla's move today was a good one. If these people could have bought a $37K + $2.5 for unlimited charging to justify it over a $25K sedan, we'd just see the local charging abuse get worse.
You & I obviously hold differing opinions as to what "rational" & "reasonable" mean.
BTW, I believe you meant the noun "rationale", rather than the adjective "rational".
Oops. Quite true.
For those that think the change will reduce the car purchase price to reflect the lost value of the free charging, I doubt it.
As the batteries go down in price I don't see that being passed along either.
The AP went up from $2500 to $3000, and now up to $5000. I know there are more cameras and a few more sensors with AP2 but cameras and sensors are cheap.
If you don't want to drive a black car, you now have to pay for paint.
I want Autopilot and a white car so that's $6500 in options right off the bat, or $4000 more than it would have been a couple of months ago.
What's this about $500 wiper blades?
I don't have a Tesla yet. I'm on the list for a 3. The tax credit will be gone by then. With these large functional price hikes, that inexpensive 3 seems less and less likely.
Maybe I don't need to be on the cutting edge for once.
I can drive a Honda, they're nice too. 45 MPG, a range of over 400 miles, refills in 5 minutes, no worries about where superchargers are, I don't need to drive 2 hours to have it serviced, and wiper blades are cheap. I won't need to install a garage charger. The cars are reliable, less than half the cost of the Tesla, and best yet, I don't pay an extra $1500 to get a white one.
I'll stay on the Tesla 3 list for the time being, but I'm getting less and less sure I'll buy one.
As the batteries go down in price I don't see that being passed along either.
The AP went up from $2500 to $3000, and now up to $5000. I know there are more cameras and a few more sensors with AP2 but cameras and sensors are cheap.
If you don't want to drive a black car, you now have to pay for paint.
I want Autopilot and a white car so that's $6500 in options right off the bat, or $4000 more than it would have been a couple of months ago.
What's this about $500 wiper blades?
I don't have a Tesla yet. I'm on the list for a 3. The tax credit will be gone by then. With these large functional price hikes, that inexpensive 3 seems less and less likely.
Maybe I don't need to be on the cutting edge for once.
I can drive a Honda, they're nice too. 45 MPG, a range of over 400 miles, refills in 5 minutes, no worries about where superchargers are, I don't need to drive 2 hours to have it serviced, and wiper blades are cheap. I won't need to install a garage charger. The cars are reliable, less than half the cost of the Tesla, and best yet, I don't pay an extra $1500 to get a white one.
I'll stay on the Tesla 3 list for the time being, but I'm getting less and less sure I'll buy one.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
While I believe this statement was made with good intentions, the same thing was said about the service centres. Yet, when you have to pay for service at a service centre, don't expect a bill from a non-profit society or you will be disappointed. Their prices are on par, if not higher, than other automotive shops.
I certainly hope so! When you use a supercharger, you don't get the equivalent in range of a full tank of gas, even if you arrive at empty and charge to 100% and have the largest available battery. Yet Tesla reassures us by saying they will charge less then "filling up" a comparable gas car. Yikes!
Have you considered buying an inventory 60 when you can still get the tax credit and the free supercharging built in? If you subtract both of those, how much of a price difference is there between the proposed $37.5K and an S60 that is several months old with several K miles? $10K?
It's a running rant on the annual "service" that tesla recommends. Basically they do visual inspection on a bunch of stuff, replace your wiper blades, put new batteries in your fob and charge $500 for it. Oh, and they stopped offering snacks in some service centers.
Similar threads
- Question
