How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[zenmaster]

Tesla will know what my car is doing, and where it is. It will know when I pull onto a SC stall and plug in. It will know how long I am there, and when the car disconnects. that's why I would like a monthly bill from them to cover my occasional SC use. They can add a surcharge to handle billing and for convenience.
Otherwise, the car will charge in my garage.
Is this really so difficult?
Robin

This info is already being collected, regardless of billing arrangement. The SC receives a unique ID from the car.
But despite that, there's also the car's radio connection and GPS?
Not sure what you're going on about.

Besides, monthly billing is not a solution to pay per use for the SC network, when the intent of the network is to facilitate long-distance travel and most people do infrequent long-distance travel.

 

[Fourdoor]

Back in the early days, there was a chicken and the egg problem with respect to charging stations - especially for long distance travel. I applaud Tesla for solving this problem and support them in their efforts (e.g. by buying a vehicle and not using the network!!!). Unfortunately, while they've solving the chicken+egg problem for themselves, they haven't done it for anyone else. I think the supercharger network is a huge overall positive thing - I want to be clear that I'm not assigning blame.

My Mother is old enough to remember "rural electrification" when the national power grid was being established, and it really made no sense at all to put in the infrastructure to provide electricity to people in rural areas... huge expense for small customer base. The power companies didn't provide free power... the provided free lightbulbs! A standard free lightbulb from back then lasted multiple times as long as a modern incandencent bulb, and if one did burn out you just called up the power company and they provided a free replacement. A few years after the grid was complete the free lightbulbs went away.

they have offered to share the SC network with other car makers. It's not up to Tesla to push it on others after they've been told "thanks, but no thanks".

Other car makers know that the business model of the supercharger network is not sustainable. Sure, GM could put a Supercharger port on the Bolt... then Tesla would make some $$$ on enabling it. Not many car companies want to put $$$ into the pocket of a rival.

Pure Speculation Below:

I wonder if Tesla would be willing to install and enable supercharger charging ports into existing non-Tesla electric cars? That is another potential revenue stream they could exploit. Looking at current aftermarket charging systems (like Plugless charging) they don't seem to have any issues with battery warranty... but the power is routed through the standard on board charger, not multiple times the "normal" charging rate. I can see a company voiding your battery / charging system warranty for getting a new charging port installed.

Keith

 

[Jersey Shore Tom]

Other car makers know that the business model of the supercharger network is not sustainable.

Please explain why the business model is not sustainable. Numbers would make the explanation more persuasive.

 

[diamond.g]

My Mother is old enough to remember "rural electrification" when the national power grid was being established, and it really made no sense at all to put in the infrastructure to provide electricity to people in rural areas... huge expense for small customer base. The power companies didn't provide free power... the provided free lightbulbs! A standard free lightbulb from back then lasted multiple times as long as a modern incandencent bulb, and if one did burn out you just called up the power company and they provided a free replacement. A few years after the grid was complete the free lightbulbs went away.



Other car makers know that the business model of the supercharger network is not sustainable. Sure, GM could put a Supercharger port on the Bolt... then Tesla would make some $$$ on enabling it. Not many car companies want to put $$$ into the pocket of a rival.

Pure Speculation Below:

I wonder if Tesla would be willing to install and enable supercharger charging ports into existing non-Tesla electric cars? That is another potential revenue stream they could exploit. Looking at current aftermarket charging systems (like Plugless charging) they don't seem to have any issues with battery warranty... but the power is routed through the standard on board charger, not multiple times the "normal" charging rate. I can see a company voiding your battery / charging system warranty for getting a new charging port installed.

Keith

Based on GM's Fleet guide Chevy isn't even including a Level 2 charger with the Volt, let alone a DC charger (both are 'options'). I am finding the conversation about paying (per use) for DCFC in a Tesla somewhat amusing.
Tesla is building their network because no one else wanted to, and the 3rd party places that do have DFDC don't have it in a high enough power, so you end up waiting a long time to get a decent charge. It isn't surprising none of the third party charging options set up shop near the congested Super Charging stations as those places aren't congested all year round so it currently isn't likely they could make their money back. As it is now, vehicle sales are allowing SuCs to be placed in places that are low traffic and are not likely to return a profit if they were pay per use.

 

[melindav]

Not so much low traffic as long distance traffic (as is the intention)

 

[diamond.g]

Not so much low traffic as long distance traffic (as is the intention)

True, maybe one day Tesla would make a heat map that shows utilization of the Super Charger network. It would be real interesting to see the usage of the SuCs in 'rural' areas.

 

[melindav]

The two close to me (90 miles to the north and 40 miles to the south) are both on the interstate in towns that I doubt have many resident owners if any, but a ton of traffic going by. Both were also in the first wave of supercharger installed in 2013 (if I remember something like #12 and 13 or #13 and 14 installs) so back when Tesla was truly looking at the locations to meet long distance spans and no cater to the populated areas (not to say that's what they are doing now)

 

[N5329K]

This info is already being collected, regardless of billing arrangement. The SC receives a unique ID from the car.
But despite that, there's also the car's radio connection and GPS?
Not sure what you're going on about.

Besides, monthly billing is not a solution to pay per use for the SC network, when the intent of the network is to facilitate long-distance travel and most people do infrequent long-distance travel.

What I'm suggesting is that all the information needed to bill owners for charge time already exists. All Tesla needs to do is issue a Tesla-branded credit card to Model 3 owners (wouldn't that be cool?). SC time can show up on the account and be billed monthly, as in any credit card. No modifications of the SC network would be needed, no attendants, no point of sale. All done OTA. Never use a SC? Never see a bill. The proscription against selling watts could be finessed by calling it a facility fee, or a parking fee. The entire operation could be structured to pay for itself and then some.
Robin

 

[zenmaster]

All Tesla needs to do is issue a Tesla-branded credit card to Model 3 owners (wouldn't that be cool?).

That would work for me, although I'd rather just put the appropriate use-fee amount into the SC account sometime before the trip. I bet that could be handled through a phone app or through a car's UI. I'd also like the app to tell me which chargers on my nav route are most likely to be available at that time of day.

 

[ohmman]

True, maybe one day Tesla would make a heat map that shows utilization of the Super Charger network. It would be real interesting to see the usage of the SuCs in 'rural' areas.

Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.

 

[zenmaster]

Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.

Only 66 cars charged in a 24hr period among all global SC sites?

 

[ohmman]

Only 66 cars charged in a 24hr period among all global SC sites?

That view is zoomed to Hawthorne. And it was in 2014.

Here is a thread on TMC with a couple of shots of the dashboard.

 

[diamond.g]

Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.

Yeah, that! That would be sweet as a web based option. I wonder if that would give away too much to competitors.

 

[TaoJones]

This info is already being collected, regardless of billing arrangement. The SC receives a unique ID from the car.
But despite that, there's also the car's radio connection and GPS?
Not sure what you're going on about.

Besides, monthly billing is not a solution to pay per use for the SC network, when the intent of the network is to facilitate long-distance travel and most people do infrequent long-distance travel.

Indeed. Cluttering the SC network with ppu (pay per use) is a miserable idea. Even subscriptions are pushing it. What exactly is the FUD now? Saturation network-wide? Not gonna happen. Today, 97% of the network does not come close to reaching capacity.

So ppu is the recommendation to address 3% of the network? Talk about overkill. Tesla has already committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE for 2 years now. The elegance of the network is in large measure due to simplicity. Minutes matter. The only thing that approaches the worseness (sure it's a word) of ICEing by our own (or ICEing by ICEs) is delaying charging due to ppu problems. It's the very definition of introducing friction into a frictionless system.

I've visited ~150 SCs in less than 18 months. With the exception of holiday periods at chokepoints due to an as-yet incomplete buildout (a point that the FUDslingers tend to gloss over), maybe a handful of SCs have been saturated - and that means less than a handful outside of California.

Tesla is more than capable of solving a 3% problem without kludging any kind of ppu solution - that goes for now, and for 5 years from now with 10x more cars on the road. Remember that to date, the entire network has essentially been paid for with ZEV credits.

With that said, this does leave a gap - people who buy a Model 3 without the SC option to save a few bucks who then decide they want to take a few trips. Well, you can't have it both ways. But you can have a Chademo adapter.

On a slightly more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla floated a one-time 30-day SC trial period of which new owners could avail themselves (similar to the recent AP trial offer). Remember that we still don't know what Tesla will charge for the one-time SC activation - so again, all of this support for ppu could be a mountain of effort for a molehill of savings over the life of the car/term of ownership.

Or just a colossal effort at finding a solution in search of a problem. That happens to potentially complicate matters for the rest of us.

Again - 97% of the network is fine today and will be fine tomorrow. Tesla has committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE. Tesla welcomes the non-garaged, and as much as it's easy to try to castigate garaged locals and livery, neither contingent presents a statistically significant impact. Most owners do not use SCs today, and most will not use SCs tomorrow.

All will be well. Cue the Animal House screenshot and remember to vote for Senator Blutarsky.

 

[jkk_]

Indeed. Cluttering the SC network with ppu (pay per use) is a miserable idea. Even subscriptions are pushing it. What exactly is the FUD now? Saturation network-wide? Not gonna happen. Today, 97% of the network does not come close to reaching capacity.

So ppu is the recommendation to address 3% of the network? Talk about overkill. Tesla has already committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE for 2 years now. The elegance of the network is in large measure due to simplicity. Minutes matter. The only thing that approaches the worseness (sure it's a word) of ICEing by our own (or ICEing by ICEs) is delaying charging due to ppu problems. It's the very definition of introducing friction into a frictionless system.

I've visited ~150 SCs in less than 18 months. With the exception of holiday periods at chokepoints due to an as-yet incomplete buildout (a point that the FUDslingers tend to gloss over), maybe a handful of SCs have been saturated - and that means less than a handful outside of California.

Tesla is more than capable of solving a 3% problem without kludging any kind of ppu solution - that goes for now, and for 5 years from now with 10x more cars on the road. Remember that to date, the entire network has essentially been paid for with ZEV credits.

With that said, this does leave a gap - people who buy a Model 3 without the SC option to save a few bucks who then decide they want to take a few trips. Well, you can't have it both ways. But you can have a Chademo adapter.

On a slightly more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla floated a one-time 30-day SC trial period of which new owners could avail themselves (similar to the recent AP trial offer). Remember that we still don't know what Tesla will charge for the one-time SC activation - so again, all of this support for ppu could be a mountain of effort for a molehill of savings over the life of the car/term of ownership.

Or just a colossal effort at finding a solution in search of a problem. That happens to potentially complicate matters for the rest of us.

Again - 97% of the network is fine today and will be fine tomorrow. Tesla has committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE. Tesla welcomes the non-garaged, and as much as it's easy to try to castigate garaged locals and livery, neither contingent presents a statistically significant impact. Most owners do not use SCs today, and most will not use SCs tomorrow.

All will be well. Cue the Animal House screenshot and remember to vote for Senator Blutarsky.

You seem to have a few typos in your post, I believe what you meant to say was:

All model 3 owners are trash who will ruin everything because they are so stupid.

But in all seriousness, great post and great information, thanks!

 

[JeffK]

Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.

See now if this was customer facing we'd know if there was going to be congestion before we possibly exit the freeway to stop at a supercharger.

 

[SageBrush]

Tesla has a really cool Supercharger dashboard at the Hawthorne design center which shows network-wide and charger-specific statistics. We have all been wanting that data to be publicly available as a customer-facing webpage, but it hasn't ever happened.

THAT is awesome. They even know the car color ;-)

 

[Red Sage]

Indeed. Cluttering the SC network with ppu (pay per use) is a miserable idea. Even subscriptions are pushing it. What exactly is the FUD now? Saturation network-wide? Not gonna happen. Today, 97% of the network does not come close to reaching capacity.

So ppu is the recommendation to address 3% of the network? Talk about overkill. Tesla has already committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE for 2 years now. The elegance of the network is in large measure due to simplicity. Minutes matter. The only thing that approaches the worseness (sure it's a word) of ICEing by our own (or ICEing by ICEs) is delaying charging due to ppu problems. It's the very definition of introducing friction into a frictionless system.

I've visited ~150 SCs in less than 18 months. With the exception of holiday periods at chokepoints due to an as-yet incomplete buildout (a point that the FUDslingers tend to gloss over), maybe a handful of SCs have been saturated - and that means less than a handful outside of California.

Tesla is more than capable of solving a 3% problem without kludging any kind of ppu solution - that goes for now, and for 5 years from now with 10x more cars on the road. Remember that to date, the entire network has essentially been paid for with ZEV credits.

With that said, this does leave a gap - people who buy a Model 3 without the SC option to save a few bucks who then decide they want to take a few trips. Well, you can't have it both ways. But you can have a Chademo adapter.

On a slightly more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla floated a one-time 30-day SC trial period of which new owners could avail themselves (similar to the recent AP trial offer). Remember that we still don't know what Tesla will charge for the one-time SC activation - so again, all of this support for ppu could be a mountain of effort for a molehill of savings over the life of the car/term of ownership.

Or just a colossal effort at finding a solution in search of a problem. That happens to potentially complicate matters for the rest of us.

Again - 97% of the network is fine today and will be fine tomorrow. Tesla has committed to DENSITY as well as to DISTANCE. Tesla welcomes the non-garaged, and as much as it's easy to try to castigate garaged locals and livery, neither contingent presents a statistically significant impact. Most owners do not use SCs today, and most will not use SCs tomorrow.

All will be well. Cue the Animal House screenshot and remember to vote for Senator Blutarsky.

Quoted for TRUTH.

 

[Garlan Garner]

It seems like the issue comes to price and what people can justify to pay towards the car. Pay per use, is being proposed for individuals who at most are going to be traveling a couple of times per year. Charging for pay per use has already been solved by evgo, blink and charge point. In each and every state in the union where there are charging stations. I cannot understand why people are so opposed to such a model. When they are in no shape or way affected by it. People must understand that the Model III buyer is an average person. As such, they are substantially more limited in the amount of money they can spend. Pay per use also makes sense in places like china. Where most people who can afford a model iii, live in a apartment. I personally like the idea of making the currrent chargers for long distance driving. Establishing some locations as local, for Tesla owners who do not live in a house.

Wow....if there is a way to put folks down...you did it.

I'm an above average person that lives in an above average house. I set my own standards of what average is.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Wow....if there is a way to put folks down...you did it.

I'm an above average person that lives in an above average house. I set my own standards of what average is.

When you (JoRey) are talking about 400,000 people, saying "they are..." is almost certainly wrong. Whatever you say in that "..." is almost certainly wrong => such as Black people are...Women are....Model 3 buyers are.... [pretty damn offensive opening isn't it]
Perhaps you are "..." and HOPE the rest who are doing one similar thing are identical in all other ways.
If YOU can't afford an EV bill, don't push that on others who are different than you.