Did Tesla really lay off their entire Supercharger staff

[djec65fb]

When companies get rid of whole departments, divisions or layers of management…it’s either to look more appealing to Wall Street, boost the boss’s performance dividend or more likely to fend off an existential crisis.
Elon has been through this situation before with Tesla…maybe he can accurately read the writing on the wall.

Part of me wants to believe that he has a clear, well thought out plan behind all of this. After all I've run exactly 0 multi-billion dollar Fortune 500's, but right now the near term outlook from the outside seems pretty bleak.

 

[KelvinMace]

When companies get rid of whole departments, divisions or layers of management…it’s either to look more appealing to Wall Street, boost the boss’s performance dividend or more likely to fend off an existential crisis.
Elon has been through this situation before with Tesla…maybe he can accurately read the writing on the wall.

When Tesla faced crises in the past, Musk was not the paranoid, vindictive, conspiracy monger he is today.

 

[geom]

Yes, that is pretty much how I feel about Elon Musk and Tesla right now. The supercharger network was that one thing that they did better than anyone else out there and those people were rewarded with unemployment. Does not bode well for the future of Tesla.

But the SC network of yesterday, that was loved, is still there, nothing has changed, we just chat about things we don't know in the future. Give it some time to unfold, then make your call as to if you support Tesla again .

 

[KelvinMace]

But the SC network of yesterday, that was loved, is still there, nothing has changed, we just chat about things we don't know in the future. Give it some time to unfold, then make your call as to if you support Tesla again .

If it were just this one thing, that would be true. But Musk has gotten more erratic over time and now routinely posts about disprovable conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic tropes, and anti-immigrant hysteria. He is no longer a well man. He follows a nut named "Cat Turd", for crying out loud.

 

[parsec]

But the SC network of yesterday, that was loved, is still there, nothing has changed,

No. Something has changed. The key lovable characteristic of the SC network was that it was growing, making it increasingly possible to go almost anywhere with a Tesla. That is what has changed: the network will not grow as fast according to Musk, and his firing the whole team will make it impossible to continue to grow the network at the same rate.

 

[KelvinMace]

No. Something has changed. The key lovable characteristic of the SC network was that it was growing, making it increasingly possible to go almost anywhere with a Tesla. That is what has changed: the network will not grow as fast according to Musk, and his firing the whole team will make it impossible to continue to grow the network at the same rate.

And Musk has now introduced the kind of FUD into the whole question of places EVs can recharge that the FF industry could only dream of. He has made his customers, EV advocates, and other automakers now utterly uncertain about Tesla's commitment to its own network and the J3400 standard it championed. There is also increasing unease about Musk's erratic/vindictive behavior.

Musk is undoing over a decade of leadership in the EV industry.

 

[traubgator]

Without inside knowledge hard to tell what he is thinking.
But clearly tesla taking on the EV charging responsibility for the entire country's isn't sustainable, and i'm assuming he is thinking globally as well.
Just locally reflecting, i've had very good super charger experiences, a few on my travels were in very odd places, without convenient bathrooms etc.
But the experience was still great.
We also have 3 superchargers within 3 miles of my house yet there are areas of north atlanta that there isn't a super charge anywhere near by.
Maybe they just assume everyone in suburbia has no need for super chargers? But look at the supercharger map north on I575 and North on GA 400 -- supercharger ghost towns. I know many people who constantly travel in north Atlanta and need superchargers even with charging at home.

 

[Bouba]

I don’t know what employment law is in the US….sacking people is quite difficult over the socialist side of the pond…closing down the business or department is one way to do it…those employees that they really want can be rehired with a different job description

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Without inside knowledge hard to tell what he is thinking.
But clearly tesla taking on the EV charging responsibility for the entire country's isn't sustainable, and i'm assuming he is thinking globally as well.
Just locally reflecting, i've had very good super charger experiences, a few on my travels were in very odd places, without convenient bathrooms etc.
But the experience was still great.
We also have 3 superchargers within 3 miles of my house yet there are areas of north atlanta that there isn't a super charge anywhere near by.
Maybe they just assume everyone in suburbia has no need for super chargers? But look at the supercharger map north on I575 and North on GA 400 -- supercharger ghost towns. I know many people who constantly travel in north Atlanta and need superchargers even with charging at home.

If Tesla opens up the network to all EVs and it can't be profitable then it either says that EVs can't work without a subsidized network, or that Tesla's network is too expensive.

Otherwise, a slowdown in network growth makes sense if overall EV sales growth is also slowing down or drivers of other EVs are using other networks instead.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Tesla opens up the network to all EVs and it can't be profitable then it either says that EVs can't work without a subsidized network, or that Tesla's network is too expensive.

I don't think it has been demonstrated yet a network that has high availability and is profitable without some sort of subsidy. Tesla subsidized the supercharger network with funding from selling cars. EA was subsidized by VW's mandated investment of $2 billion. The federal government realized a good charge network can't be built profitably without subsidies (which is why the NEVI funding program).

I looked it up and even the most successful networks in Europe like FastNED is running at a loss. There are also others that are joint ventures like Ionity, which are subsidized by automakers.

Basically for a great experience, you want the charge network to always have plenty of empty stalls available to prevent the need for people to wait. But that is the exact opposite of what you want for profitability (which is that you want the stalls to be occupied most of the time).

Otherwise, a slowdown in network growth makes sense if overall EV sales growth is also slowing down or drivers of other EVs are using other networks instead.

Slowing down network growth helps control costs and let the revenue catch up, which reduces the amount of loss and increases the chance of breaking even. Previously Tesla built at a pace generally well ahead of vehicle demand, and it made sense given it was a great selling point for Tesla vehicles. Now that all the new stations going in are going to support non-Tesla vehicles (none are V2s that exclude non-Teslas), they can't justify the same investment, given a buyer is just as likely to buy a non-Tesla EV to use the supercharger network.

 

[Ben W]

Without inside knowledge hard to tell what he is thinking.
But clearly tesla taking on the EV charging responsibility for the entire country's isn't sustainable, and i'm assuming he is thinking globally as well.

This is reversed. Tesla was on the cusp of getting buy-in and support from all the other manufacturers for the NACS standard, which would have ensured that it would become a thriving ecosystem with support and contribution from all sides in the future. But by his recent actions, Elon has immediately cast doubt on all that, potentially alienating all the other companies who would otherwise buy in, and leaving Tesla as the only company who will back NACS, keeping them solely on the financial hook for maintaining the network in perpetuity. He has shot himself in the foot with this on an epic scale.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I don't think it has been demonstrated yet a network that has high availability and is profitable without some sort of subsidy. Tesla subsidized the supercharger network with funding from selling cars. EA was subsidized by VW's mandated investment of $2 billion. The federal government realized a good charge network can't be built profitably without subsidies (which is why the NEVI funding program).

I looked it up and even the most successful networks in Europe like FastNED is running at a loss. There are also others that are joint ventures like Ionity, which are subsidized by automakers.

Basically for a great experience, you want the charge network to always have plenty of empty stalls available to prevent the need for people to wait. But that is the exact opposite of what you want for profitability (which is that you want the stalls to be occupied most of the time).

Tesla has a lot of stalls, but with limited max power per site so if a site is very busy individual vehicles have limited power. I think that's the cost compromise they made.

 

[Ben W]

Basically for a great experience, you want the charge network to always have plenty of empty stalls available to prevent the need for people to wait. But that is the exact opposite of what you want for profitability (which is that you want the stalls to be occupied most of the time).

This is what stall-sharing is for. It allows the network to theoretically operate at maximum power output (maximum profitability) even when only half the stalls are occupied, yet still accommodates the full number of cars at peak times (with some drawing less power as their packs fill up).

Additionally, for sites with onsite battery storage (megapack), fluctuating traffic allows the site to function at full capacity at peak times without requiring crazy-overbuilt grid connections to the site. In other words, by trickle-charging an on-site megapack at off-hours, the site may be able to supply e.g. 5MW at peak times while only requiring a 1MW grid connection. With a setup like this, having long stretches of the day with most of the stalls unused is actually a good thing.

 

[ucmndd]

This is reversed. Tesla was on the cusp of getting buy-in and support from all the other manufacturers for the NACS standard, which would have ensured that it would become a thriving ecosystem with support and contribution from all sides in the future. But by his recent actions, Elon has immediately cast doubt on all that, potentially alienating all the other companies who would otherwise buy in, and leaving Tesla as the only company who will back NACS, keeping them solely on the financial hook for maintaining the network in perpetuity. He has shot himself in the foot with this on an epic scale.

I don’t think this is necessarily true. NACS is an SAE standard now, out of Tesla’s direct control. It can thrive or wither independent of Tesla’s shenanigans.

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

I don’t think this is necessarily true. NACS is an SAE standard now, out of Tesla’s direct control. It can thrive or wither independent of Tesla’s shenanigans.

Eh? He was talking about Tesla being left with an orphan. You are talking about Tesla abandoning it to the other manufacturers.

Tesla would be pretty silly to change out their own standard. I think we can rule that one out?

The rest can take it or leave it at this junction.

 

[Ben W]

I don’t think this is necessarily true. NACS is an SAE standard now, out of Tesla’s direct control. It can thrive or wither independent of Tesla’s shenanigans.

Betamax was a standard, too. (Technically superior to VHS. We all know how that went.)

The point is that there's substantial overhead for other manufacturers to switch to NACS as their charging standard. They might have been willing to take that hit because access to Tesla's Supercharger network had been perceived as such an appealing draw for their prospective customers. But now, with Tesla giving all overt indications that they are going to let the Supercharger network stagnate, that makes it immediately much less appealing for anyone else to jump on the NACS bandwagon, despite its technical superiority. Tesla will continue to use it of course, but for all other manufacturers, Tesla's shenanigans make it far more likely that it will wither instead of thrive.

 

[ucmndd]

Eh? He was talking about Tesla being left with an orphan.

Yep, I got that. I’m saying I disagree with this being a realistic concern.

You are talking about Tesla abandoning it to the other manufacturers.

I’m talking about other manufacturers abandoning their plans to switch to NACS, which is what the post I quoted suggests as a possibility. I think the likelihood of anyone doing that is next to nil. Even if Tesla never builds another supercharger again the current quantity and quality of NACS fast chargers in the US is many multiples greater than current CCS stations. Switching to NACS will be a benefit to any US manufacturer on day one and will remain so moving forward given the SAE’s standardization of the port.

Tesla would be pretty silly to change out their own standard. I think we can rule that one out?

I never ruled it in to begin with.

 

[ucmndd]

The point is that there's substantial overhead for other manufacturers to switch to NACS as their charging standard.

I think it’s pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things and everyone is already working on it.

But now, with Tesla giving all overt indications that they are going to let the Supercharger network stagnate, that makes it immediately much less appealing for anyone else to jump on the NACS bandwagon, despite its technical superiority.

As I said upthread, this is the crux of my disagreement. Switching to NACS will be an immediate benefit to literally any other EV manufacturer on day one even if Tesla never builds another supercharger again.

Tesla will continue to use it of course, but for all other manufacturers, Tesla's shenanigans make it far more likely that it will wither instead of thrive.

Nobody is pulling out of any committed plans at this point. They will move forward with the transition and continue to invest in the now open and SAE-controlled vastly predominant standard, just like all the charging station manufacturers will.

 

[RichAZ/CapeCod]

... Musk is undoing over a decade of leadership in the EV industry.

Musk has demonstrated he is mercurial, unreliable, prone to make snap judgements which are harmful to his own business and the EV industry as a whole. The decision to wholesale fire 500 critical employees (how the heck would there be time enough to vet a group of this size prior to terminating them on a whim??) was demonstrative of the man's inability to manage people.

The loss of talent now gone with that group pales in comparison to the loss of connections and personal relationships built up, over years, with other members of the EV community.

Rich

 

[QtownTaxiGreg]

I think it’s pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things and everyone is already working on it.

As I said upthread, this is the crux of my disagreement. Switching to NACS will be an immediate benefit to literally any other EV manufacturer on day one even if Tesla never builds another supercharger again.


Nobody is pulling out of any committed plans at this point. They will move forward with the transition and continue to invest in the now open and SAE-controlled vastly predominant standard, just like all the charging station manufacturers will.

It's only going to thrive if the other manufacturers jump on with adoption. They could decide to throw in together on something else rather than continue.

The current numbers of public chargers is a fraction of what's required for ubiquitous EV. Now is the time to decide on a single standard. Elon has bet the farm that they will decide to stay.