ohmman
Plaid-ish Moderator
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
One thing is for certain, Tesla needs to build a whole lot more supercharger stations. Especially in Socal and other heavy populated areas. I like many others would prefer pay per use, because i cannot justify spending so much on something i will never use. Likewise, only half of the population live in private homes. So Tesla is going to have to start building superchargers to cater to this demographic. Most importantly, if i or anyone buys charging adapters to use CCS or Chadamo. I expect to be able to use said adapter, with ought having to pay for Supercharging.
diamond.g
Active Member
On the original S60 they offered the ability to turn on just DC charging for 1750? Which included the chademo adapter. It is possible they could do something similar if it costs extra to enable supercharging.
jgs
Active Member
I'm a little confused. First you say "Tesla needs to build a whole lot more supercharger stations". Then you say those stations are "something [you] would never use". If you would never use them, why do you even have a dog in this fight? I guess maybe you're using "never" hyperbolically, to mean "not very often"?
Personally, I'd rather pay per use and I'd bet most of the people wanting pay-up-front, unlimited access would be using it frequently. And among those using it frequently, I'd bet most are using the local chargers. This is what I see at my local SC which I can easily prove. Obviously, the equitable model would have cost contribution tied directly to usage.
ccutrer
Active Member
I'm getting an X with supercharging enabled for the family vehicle. Then a Model 3 that will be mine. I doubt I'll use supercharges with it, but if the price is right for a lifetime package ($500 seems pretty good), I'll probably spring for it just cause. I'd rather roll $500 into the loan and never use it than worry about the headache of pay per use.
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
There's a basic fallacy here, in that the initial payment is to equip and enable the car for supercharging and not to pay for the supercharging use or energy (check your sales agreement, which is the only legally binding document). Since the initial payment is now wrapped into the price of the car, and likely will be for all future models, the only issue is whether or not to pay for supercharging use and energy, per use or by subscription.
That will be decided by Tesla on whatever basis they choose, but I sincerely hope they choose to charge for it per use based on any type of credit card on file with them. That will eliminate all motive for driving to a supercharger when one could be charging at home, and also any excuse Tesla may have for failing to market a vehicle to grid interface that would allow us to use the car for a residential backup power source.
That will be decided by Tesla on whatever basis they choose, but I sincerely hope they choose to charge for it per use based on any type of credit card on file with them. That will eliminate all motive for driving to a supercharger when one could be charging at home, and also any excuse Tesla may have for failing to market a vehicle to grid interface that would allow us to use the car for a residential backup power source.
jgs
Active Member
No, there's also the battery warranty "excuse".
To me it wouldn't be a headache as I plan my long-distance trips. Not sure how you get $500 though.
ohmman
Plaid-ish Moderator
@ccutrer highlights an interesting case for a cheaper unlimited price. That is, there's a point at which the unlimited option is so appealing, enough buyers will choose it regardless of whether they will use it. If the revenues from buyers who purchase but don't use the service are high enough, they would subsidize other users who utilize more than their "fair share." This goes back to my insurance example from earlier. We normally pay premiums higher than our claims for the luxury of not having to pay out of pocket when we have big claims, or a big year. And in doing so, we pay for the others who are utilizing the insurance system to a much greater degree. So it would be a similar model.
I don't know how low that price would have to be to encourage enough adoption, but high enough to provide a surplus of revenue over cost. But it's an interesting thought.
I don't know how low that price would have to be to encourage enough adoption, but high enough to provide a surplus of revenue over cost. But it's an interesting thought.
20 (or 50) million charging sessions each year certainly sounds like a lot. But I assume a typical Model ☰ will have a lifespan far longer than one year. For example, if you assume the average Model ☰ has a lifespan of 10 years and 500k are sold each year, then the 20 (or 50) million charging sessions only works out to 4-10 per car per year.
Unless you're suggesting that Model ☰ owners will pay $500 per year? Then your math works out.
Regardless of what should or could be done, in August 2015 Tesla Motors raised ~$700M from selling stock. This was what they told the investing public the funds would be used for (emphasis mine):
We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to accelerate the growth of our business in the U.S. and internationally, including the growth of our stores, service centers, Supercharger network and the Tesla Energy business, and for the development and production of Model 3, the development of the Tesla Gigafactory and other general corporate purposes. See “Use of Proceeds.”
So they've already had to reach out to capital markets to accelerate the growth of the supercharger network. Maybe this will change in the future... if so, it would be with a headwind from lower (per car) margins, perhaps offset by a tailwind in not needing to expand the supercharger network as much for coverage.
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
It's quite simple i cannot justify paying 2k for Supercharging. Not when i rarely leve socal and will therefore rarely use Superchargers. However, in cities like socal, half of the population lives in apartments and say half live in houses. In order to be able to capitalize on this market Tesla needs to install Superchargers in places were people can charge using a pay-per use model. Strategically placed Superchargers would allow people to own a Tesla without owning a house. It would be the equivalent of a electric gas station and, would only really work in urban areas. That said, Tesla has found out it can capitalize by making all cars with the same hardware and, then unlocking the software for a fee or when it resales the car.
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
The real question is. Should Tesla allow customers that buy a Chademo adapter the ability to use said adapter if they did not pay for Supercharging software? The hardware is already built into the car, but should the software be included with the adapter.
Ben W
P85 #61, Roadster #108
Do you mean that Elon's promise of "free supercharging for life" is not legally binding for existing owners? The amount of blowback Tesla would receive if they tried to renege on that would be mind-boggling, so I think it's something that existing owners can confidently count on.
The initial payment ($2k for S60 owners, or wrapped into the price of the car for other S/X owners) was intended to cover the hardware costs as well as the prime-location SC buildout and electricity costs, I believe. Seldom-used SC's were considered a marketing expense. The cost of the SC hardware will be baked into the sticker price of all future cars, true.
Good point that pay per use eliminates V2G arbitrage problems, where users might charge up at the SC for free and then drive home to power their house. I would suggest that once Tesla has a pay-per-use mechanism in place, that they should make V2G _itself_ pay-per-use (e.g. $0.50/kWh), so that it could also be used by owners who have unlimited SC access. For instance, if I could connect my Model S to a PowerWall to supplement its capacity in an emergency, and if Tesla were to charge $0.50/kWh for such usage, that would be a fantastic solution IMO. The fee would prevent arbitrage, and would also cover the extra wear and tear on the battery pack.
Last edited:
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Waitasec... If you never intend to use Superchargers, what does it matter to you how many there are, where they are, and what the payment means would be?
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
What makes this 'obvious' to you, exactly? I would be charging at home most days, weeks, months of the year. But every chance I got, I would be on the road -- because I love to drive. The freedom of doing so without pay-per-use, or billing is extremely attractive to me. Once again, using the Superchargers does not equate to abusing them. They are meant to be used for charging cars, not as modern art to decorate parking lots.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
You aren't buying an iPod. The iTunes music store isn't going to run out of copies of any particular song or album because 'too many people' buy it. Tesla Motors has no compelling reason whatsoever to turn Superchargers into vending machines for electricity. There is no existing or impending situation that will require that Superchargers become a profit center. Stockholders are always happy, for a little while, with the notion that companies have regular, captive subscribers. But that only works when your audience has no other choice. Electricity is everywhere and is easy to acquire.
So, once again you want to punish every single Tesla owner for the imagined transgressions of someone who has done nothing at all. People who do stupid, inconsiderate things don't need any motive to do so. They just do stuff to make other people's lives miserable because that is their purpose in life. Every attempt to deter a supposed 'abuser' will result in pissing off ordinary, regular users first.
Similar threads
