How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[nwdiver]

IMO the odds of pay per use are ~0. Tesla needs the $$$ to expand the network when the cars are added to the network... not collected over the next few years. The only pay per use option would be to make owners pay to use something they just paid to build... that just seems silly. Perhaps in ~10 years when the network is mature this will make sense.

So the question is... if offered... which would you prefer? Not what you think will happen or what you think will work. And make up your own pay per use scheme... per minute, per kWh... whatever. Would you rather pay up front on day 1 or slowly over time?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I'd like Tesla's pay-up-front model to be made to work.

 

[electracity]

IMO the odds of pay per use are ~0.

Unfortunately, I agree. $2K is probably fine, however. $3K feels a bit unfair for the very many people who only rarely use superchargers.

 

[nwdiver]

I'd like Tesla's pay-up-front model to be made to work.

? It DOES work.

Or are you insinuating that it would stop working if pay per use were offered....

 

[Piney999]

Free forever model is key to resale!

 

[trils0n]

I think it's highly likely they will do it just like they did for Model S, which was $2k activates supercharging for the life of the vehicle. Near zero chance of pay per use, because it gets in the way of the super simple "just plug in and charge" freedom type vision of the superchargers. (Every pay per charge network I've used has also had serious reliability issues, a significant amount of which are poor payment systems going down preventing charging). I really like Tesla's one time charge -- no fumbling with billing/RFID cards, charging network accounts, etc. It is such a nice experience to just plug in and charge, I hope it continues.

I wonder if they will offer lower cost, shorter term activation though (perhaps a weekend or month activation for trips?)

 

[electracity]

They still need to control Uber drivers saturating certain supercharger locations with model 3. Likely the terms of service will be more explicit to manage livery drivers. There could be potential warranty issues with daily supercharging too.

 

[trils0n]

Likely the terms of service will be more explicit to manage livery drivers.

I'd hope they'd have different licenses for superchargers, like many software co's do with their software/services. Personal use is free, commercial use has a fee.

 

[tenstringer009]

Maybe they could do some sort of annual subscription service for those who don't want to pay for it all upfront, those who rarely take long-distance road trips (maybe once every three years), or those who want to hold out and see how the supercharger network gets filled in. They could structure it at ~$400/yr or something. That'd also allow for people who don't plan to keep their vehicles for too long from having to pay for something they won't be able to use for the 'lifetime' of the car. Granted, I'm sure the cars with a 'lifetime' subscription will sell for more. However, assuming they stick with the ~$2k option price, Tesla would need 5 years of subscription service to 'break even', and if it so happens that the first owner of the car pays for one or two years, and the second owner buys a 'lifetime' subscription, that's an extra $400-800 in Tesla's pocket.

Personally, I'm fine paying for unlimited supercharger use upfront (whether it be a $2k option on the lowest battery Model 3 or included in the price of a higher capacity battery), but I could certainly see people's desire for a different option other than the all or nothing approach as it stands now, and the pay-per-use option does seem like an administrative headache.

 

[nwdiver]

Near zero chance of pay per use, because it gets in the way of the super simple "just plug in and charge" freedom type vision of the superchargers.

The bigger issue for pay per use is where does the money to build it come from?

 

[kzod]

I think the biggest issue is the misconception even among owners that "Free for Life" represents an amazing value. It sounds like a bargain, when in truth most normal owners would never use that much electricity in the rare case of long distance travel, since it's not meant as a daily charge option. But, it's not about paying for the electricity it's really a low cost option to increase the functionality of your car. If you owned a leaf or i3 wouldn't you gladly pay 2.5k to make it worthy of distance travel?

 

[FloridaJohn]

Everyone keeps going back to the $2000 price point because that is what was charged for the Model S. I don't think that is a good price.

There are going to be a lot more Model 3s, and we know there is no need to build a Supercharger for every car. The scaling effect will allow for a lot more money available from Model 3 sales.

I think a Supercharger fee for the Model 3 will be in the $500-$1000 range. I see no reason for them to charge as much as they did for the Model S.

 

[Sharkbait]

I don't see myself as a person that would be using SC often and certainly not enough to justify a $1,500 cost. So for vacations or cross-country trips I would use it on a pay per use basis. More than 95% of my charging needs will be met with my residential solar. I'm also thinking about keeping the Prius, which is a fairly clean car as ICE cars go. Besides, I can fill it up in less than five minutes and it gets a reliable 50 mpg.

 

[nickpants]

I'd like to hope it turns out to be $1,000 that way I can say I've already paid for it on my deposit.

 

[gregincal]

The bigger issue for pay per use is where does the money to build it come from?

It comes from the same place it does right now, the advertising budget. People get really confused by the idea that Tesla is somehow putting aside 2K from every car sale into a special fund that is used to build superchargers. Tesla can freely decide how much to spend on superchargers each quarter, and it has absolutely zero to do with some funny money accounting about how much superchargers are "earning". That's like saying that Apple has to charge for iOS upgrades or they won't be able to pay engineers' salaries to write the software. Superchargers help sell cars, so Tesla invests in them. Right now superchargers are earning absolutely nothing, and saying that 2K of each car sale goes to superchargers is fictitious nonsense.

The only point of pay per use is to manage use of superchargers and possible have a revenue stream that scales with increased electricity use, it has nothing to do with how superchargers are built.

(If you insist on believing that some portion of the price of the car pays for supercharging, then you can think of the pay per use model this way: Supercharge "access" is included in the car, and some portion of the Model 3 cost pays for building superchargers. Supercharger "use" costs extra, either say $500 up front or some amount per use. In reality that's not the way it works, though.)

 

[flamingoezz]

Both models should be available honestly.

People who have a long commute or travel a lot will need supercharging.

Those like myself who have a short commute and only take long trips a couple times a year probably don't have much interest in paying $2000 or more to charge remotely.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Give me unlimited Supercharging, 75 kWh battery and dual motors in a package for $10,000...
...SOLD!

Dan

 

[182RG]

They still need to control Uber drivers saturating certain supercharger locations with model 3. Likely the terms of service will be more explicit to manage livery drivers. There could be potential warranty issues with daily supercharging too.

@Red Sage will be along shortly to correct you....

 

[electracity]

Give me unlimited Supercharging, 75 kWh battery and dual motors in a package for $10,000...
...SOLD!

Dan

I doubt the battery upgrade on the model 3 will be less than the S/X (per kWh).

 

[dhanson865]

forget 50mpg, If they are going to charge vs it needs to be more on the scale of 100mpg or better.

The only reason to charge is to keep it from being abused. The charge can be moderate/low and still be a deterrent.