An Update to our Supercharging Program

[Stealth MD]

It's not right to say one thing and then go back on your word.

And as far as a viable competitors to the S/X, just wait until Mercedes comes out with their cars (10 by 2025), Porsche with theirs, Audi with theirs, BMW with theirs. It won't be long until they surpass Tesla in terms of performance/range. Doubt me all you want, but with their resources that what I'm saying is unrealistic? It's all a matter of time...

And like I said earlier, pretty sure the self driving suite (on top of the cost of the hardware) will be some sort of pay-as-you go business model (subscription most likely).

 

[RogerHScott]

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!

I think you might be being a tad too literal here. I'm pretty sure what they meant was "the gas required to travel an equivalent distance".

 

[RogerHScott]

It won't be long [past 2025?] until [Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW] surpass Tesla in terms of performance/range.

I've no doubt the 2025 Mercedes will surpass even the 2017 Tesla. I'm sure this prospect keeps Elon up at night.

 

[KublaConn]

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.

So, you responded to my statements directed towards someone else's comment, but you now admit that you don't agree with the point that I was originally countering? Pardon me, but what was your purpose in using my words to make this whole other point, other than to create a strawman with which to joust, that is? You say "micromanaging isn't needed", but you then go on to claim it can be done with software. That's not disclaiming micromanagement will have to occur, that's just detailing the tools they will use to do their micromanagement. What you are calling for is micromanagement of use cases, plain and simple.

Yes, there are many reasons that one may legitimately need to use a local supercharger and your example is just one of them. My whole point, which you chose not to address, is that the "crime" that we are addressing is a crime of intent, and intent cannot be determined with utter certainty through the examination of raw data alone. The purpose of the supercharger network is to increase the adoption of EVs through alleviating the weaknesses that make an EV a less desireable choice as opposed to an ICE, specifically, being able to make long trips without running out of juice before being able to return home. That "long trip" does not necessarily have to be one that take you a far distance from your home and then back again. There are a number of use cases that are possible where that trip is within a relatively short distance from one's home, but you still accumulated enough miles to be in danger of running out of juice.

You are asking Tesla to make considerations as to every possible use case and then determine the intent of the user and judge if a use is "legitmate" or not and I am saying that is an unreasonable expectation that could easily result in an injustice being inflicted upon innocent Tesla owners. I believe this announcement from Tesla demonstrates that they have a decent grasp on the nuances of the situation and are adressing it in a reasonable way. This move will serve well in culling out many of those of the "improper intent" crowd because it takes away much of their incentive and it demonstrates a much more egalitarian, rather than authoritarian, approach. A "nobody who lives within 'this' distance of a supercharger ever gets to use it" system is not a reasonable or fair approach to the issue and fails to fully address the core problem without punishing those who demonstrate no ill-intent.

 

[Stealth MD]

I've no doubt the 2025 Mercedes will surpass even the 2017 Tesla. I'm sure this prospect keeps Elon up at night.

That's not what I said. I'm talking about a same model year comparison.

Thanks for misquoting me.

 

[ElectricMonkey]

The Nissan Leaf "no charge to charge" program works pretty well. On the CHAdeMO "quick charger", you get 1/2 hour, and then they start charging you $$$. On the level 2, J1772 charger, you get 1 hour, and then they start charging you $$$. Everyone wins. You get your free charge, but they discourage people from turning a charge station into a parking spot, and they generate a little revenue.

I'm going to start parking my EV in front of gas pumps and leaving it there to see what people do

 

[sorka]

You say "micromanaging isn't needed", but you then go on to claim it can be done with software. That's not disclaiming micromanagement will have to occur, that's just detailing the tools they will use to do their micromanagement. What you are calling for is micromanagement of use cases, plain and simple.

All I meant was that a human doesn't have to do the micromanaging. I don't consider a scalable software solution that can evolve from less strict to more strict as the patterns are identified over time to be micro-management.

Yes, there are many reasons that one may legitimately need to use a local supercharger and your example is just one of them. My whole point, which you chose not to address, is that the "crime" that we are addressing is a crime of intent, and intent cannot be determined with utter certainty through the examination of raw data alone.

I don't agree that it requires intent to qualify as supercharger abuse.

The purpose of the supercharger network is to increase the adoption of EVs through alleviating the weaknesses that make them an EV a less desireable choice as opposed to an ICE, specifically, being able to make long trips without running out of juice before being able to return home. That "long trip" does not necessarily have to be to a far distance from your home and then back again. There are a number of use cases that are possible where that trip is within a relatively short distance from one's home, but you still accumulated enough miles to be in danger of running out of juice.

No but if you drive a lot of local miles and need to use the supercharger because you're home can't do it fast enough, that's still long distance even if you don't go far from your home. Again, a pattern that is easy to identify especially if you park at home every time night and don't charge(if you're parking in a multi-unit dwelling parking lot, then you're probably excluded even if you *intended* to buy the tesla to save on buying gas).

You are asking Tesla to make considerations as to every possible use case and then determine the intent of the user and judge if a use is "legitmate" or not and I am saying that is an unreasonable expectation that could easily result in an injustice being inflicted upon innocent Tesla owners.

Not at all. It doesn't have to be anywhere near that complicated. If you charge repeatedly close to where you live and then go home and don't charge at home(based on where you park most nights), then you're not utilizing the system for long distance travel. And by long distance, I mean you drive a lot of miles even if you're local. Granted that means that commercial services like limousine and courier services wouldn't be flagged by the system but again, let's start with a system that is forgiving that tags obvious worst offenders and then tightens up over time as Tesla learns more about what patterns constitute abuse.

 

[cpa]

I think Tesla should augment this new Supercharging model with the following:

Many Supercharger locations are at motels, and I have used many in our 30 months of ownership. Off the top of my head: Harris Ranch, Springfield OR, Ritzville, Ellensburg, Flagstaff, Gallup, Farmington, Goodland, Glenwood Springs, Denver Airport, Salina (might be Hays, I do not recall), Mt. Shasta, The Dalles and Buellton come to mind. I have spent the night at about six of these locations.

Why not add destination HPWC chargers at these locations too? Travelers can charge overnight and not use up their 400 kWh/year allotment. The motel will gain a customer for allowing ~$10.00 of "free" electricity. Everybody wins--the motel gets another occupant, the customer does not deplete his annual allotment, a through traveler does not have to compete with an overnight traveler and Tesla does not have additional operating and maintenance costs.

In fact, Tesla should flood popular locations with HPWC in order to persuade long-distance travelers to stop there and charge whilst eating or visiting an attraction. Place them at amusement parks, beaches, National Parks and other locations like that.

 

[D.E.]

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?

You are right of course. I think the $1500 for white annoys me, it isn't rational that it bothers me as much as it does. I'm toying with the idea of a S60D or a ludicrous 3 later. It'd be a toy, though.

Thanks.

 

[KublaConn]

It's not right to say one thing and then go back on your word.

And as far as a viable competitors to the S/X, just wait until Mercedes comes out with their cars (10 by 2025), Porsche with theirs, Audi with theirs, BMW with theirs. It won't be long until they surpass Tesla in terms of performance/range. Doubt me all you want, but with their resources that what I'm saying is unrealistic? It's all a matter of time...

And like I said earlier, pretty sure the self driving suite (on top of the cost of the hardware) will be some sort of pay-as-you go business model (subscription most likely).

Well, you say "it won't be long", but then you point to nine years from now, maybe we have different definitions of "long". You then say, "it's only a matter of time", with no indication as to what Tesla will be doing during that same span of time. Will they somehow be stuck in amber? Sure they're ahead now, but maybe they're like the victim in a cheesy horror flick and they just keep falling down or running down dead-end hallways? You address these supposedly far superior (and I can only assume much more affordable) cars that these other manufacturers will be coming out with, but you don't address the actual topic of this thread, mainly, the supercharger network. Will they also have that covered nine years from now? As much as any other factor, if not THE factor that sells the Tesla is the infrastructure, because an EV has little hope of replacing an ICE without it. I would also like to know, exactly what promise your referring to that was made by Tesla, specifically about supercharging, they're now taking back? Did they claim that every car they ever made now or in the future would have unlimited free access to their supercharging network? I've been following them for years now and I don't recall that claim being made. Any reasonable person should have been able to figure out that they wouldn't be able to keep the offer of free charging on the table indefinitely. Are you suggesting that all of these other "legacy" car makers will be offering a free supercharging network? Good luck with that one. I have no doubt that the big boys are going to get in the game eventually, and they will bring some very nice buggies to the show, but they're playing catch up and will be doing so for years to come.

 

[auger]

I haven't rented in many years. Do modern apartments have gas stations with free gasoline? Or do you leave the parking lot, then go buy some?

How is that different?

Are their charging stations on every corner that will charge your car in five minutes? If you want widespread adoption as soon as possible, then EVs are going to have to have the advantage to overcome objections. Overcoming the "what if I want to go somewhere" objection is how the supercharger network started, I think.

That's how it's different.

 

[Dax279]

I agree that something needed to be done going forward and do like the way this has been rolled out. My concern buyin gmy MS was that when I needed a supercharger they would all be in use and I would have to wait and so if Tesla can do something to minimize this, then I am all for it. I also think that Tesla does need to find a way to stop people who abuse a local supercharger.

One thought is that given they can notify you of your cars charge status through the mobile app is to charge people for the time they spend clogging up a charging spot (still free charging, but not a free spot for day and night parking).

For instance if your car is fully charged, the they give you free time to move it, but after this time is up they begin to charge if the station is busy with people waiting. for those that think they can park all day or night, then charging an hourly rate could change their behavior. For example, if you are the only one at a charger You don't get dinged but if all are in use they charge you $20 for first hour and so on.

 

[RogerHScott]

That's not what I said. I'm talking about a same model year comparison.

Thanks for misquoting me.

How can you possibly claim to know what Tesla will offer in 2025? And I didn't "misquote" you -- I was very explicit about my editorial additions.

 

[auger]

Why? Does GM/VW have its own pumps were you get petrol at cost? There is a good amountof infrastructure to build and maintain. And on the lower cost per mile, say a $0.05 markup per mile (would that be unfair to cover costs?) can be a significant markup over bare energy cost. Still way cheaper than independent chargers probably, so little reason to complain for Tesla drivers. You pay a bit more for a premium car and BEV market leadership, you save some on cost per additional mile.
Home charging being cheaper than on the go might help rolling out the home charging network, demand for solar panels/roofs, power walls, etc, etc. All good. Electricity should never be perceived as "free of charge" (inevitable pun).

That's fine as long as Tesla is willing to give up a major selling point. With less than 1% (US) of the market, EVs are still pushing a boulder up a hill. We should maintain the advantage when we can. Most are not as committed as we are . . .

 

[jgs]

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.

I'm comfortable with having them walk away from their reservations. Sounds like the best outcome for everyone.

 

[auger]

You think Tesla won't include some markup on it?

Probably. I just don't think they should.

However, since the cost of electricity varies wildly, I don't think it's practical to vary the supercharger fee by location. Depends on how Tesla implements it.

 

[jgs]

If you don't want to drive a black car, you now have to pay for paint.

"Now" meaning "at least since I placed my order in October of 2014"? (Well OK, I could have chosen basic white too.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well, @stopcrazypp claims it does:

I don't know if that's based on documentary evidence though, perhaps @stopcrazypp can comment.

Something's wrong with your quote so I'm not sure the person you are responding to will see this, but my numbers are all in this post, where I got that Tesla's cost model and historic usage allows for about 10% of annual miles to be supercharger miles (actual usage was already reaching 8.6% by mid 2015). 400KWh is about 1300 miles, which is pretty much 10% of driving by your average US driver.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1428093/

By the way, even if we suppose the average Supercharger utilization per vehicle is exactly 400 kWh, and their planning number was always 400 kWh, Tesla still ends up making more money under the announced model. This is because some drivers will exceed the mean, and pay usage charges (more money). Some will fall below the mean, but they won't get a refund (no less money). Heads I win, tails you lose. This is why retainers are a thing (the lawyer kind, not the orthodontist kind) and for that matter why my snow removal service likes to be paid for 10 clearings up front at the beginning of the season.

So, it's a price increase. (Which is fine as far as I'm concerned.)

Depends on what you are comparing to. Compared to no limits and not raising the car price in some way, Tesla might make some money (or more accurately lose less money on the network if you include installation costs). However, if you compare it the previous model, Tesla would have raised the car price or have supercharging as an additional one time option, and Tesla might have made more money there if they made the initial price high enough. However, that would put it on Tesla to accurately predict demand for the lifetime of the car when sold.

Right now, presuming the average usage is at or beyond 400kWh per year (which the statistics suggest they likely are), and Tesla charging a break-even price for usage beyond that, Tesla doesn't actually make as much money as they could have.

The fact that some users will get more out of it and some less doesn't change the equation on that, since that was true in the old model also.

In the old model, from the data I linked, if usage remained under 10% of annual miles, then Tesla might have at least had a small profit on the ongoing-cost side (although overall the superchargers are still a money loser when you add in network installation costs). Right now with a pay per use component, Tesla is pretty much going to be break even (and it'll be easy to achieve that without being a prophet that can predict ongoing demand).

 

[jgs]

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!

I realize it's not what the text says verbatim but I took (and still take) it to mean they're committing that the per-mile cost will be lower than gas.

 

[MP3Mike]

However, since the cost of electricity varies wildly, I don't think it's practical to vary the supercharger fee by location. Depends on how Tesla implements it.

Why is it not practical to charge a different rate in a different location? (And they have already said that they will.)

Maybe the sites that are sponsored by stores/restaurants will have a much cheaper rate than the non-sponsored ones...