Garlan Garner
Banned
Hmmm. This forum vote is really close: What is the SolarCity merger going to do for this discussion?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
alseTrick
Active Member
Interesting idea. I would hope they'd design it to maximize chargers and not keep the inefficient gas station layout though. Is that pic from an article, or just "fan art" from somewhere?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Probably nothing. Elon's pitch for Solar City is about bundling solar panels and home batteries with the cars, not really about solar panels for superchargers. So far there are only a handful of supercharger locations with solar panels and that is unlikely to change until the network has matured (money is currently better spent on expanding the network rather than on installing panels).
Offering to share the SC network is just a feel good PR move (just like the open source patents offer). It makes no sense for other manufacturers to pay Tesla money so that their customers can plug their non-Tesla cars into Tesla Superchargers.
If Tesla were serious about sharing the SC network to accelerate the adoption of non-Tesla EV's, they would create adapters (e.g. the reverse of the Tesla CHAdeMO) for non-Tesla EV owners to buy and use.
I don't have the education or time to self educate on picking my own investments, my $$$ is in a 401K set up with a retirement date far in the future and "high risk" strategy switching to medium risk about 5 years from retirement and low risk 2.5 years from retirement. No gain over the last year or so, but the previous 4 years before that had good growth for me.
Interesting, banks advertise to get people to do second mortgage / refinance all the time with no mention that the interest may not be tax deductible... but they are in the business of selling loans, not helping customers
Keith
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
It is precisely because Tesla Motors IS SERIOUS that they don't do such a thing. This would cause the very Supercharger Apocalypse that so many Tesla Owners are afraid the Model 3 would bring on. Because you would end up with Supercharger stalls clogged with plugin hybrids that need throttled down charging rates to protect their tiny little battery packs that provide only 9 to 20 miles of fully electric range.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
One of the poll options above was:
There is no reason to charge incremental 'at the pump' fees for Supercharger access unless your intent is to either: 1) discourage use; or 2) make a profit. The notion that it would be done to 'break even' is simply ridiculous. I believe Tesla Motors wants to encourage Supercharger use. I believe that an attempt to profit from Superchargers in a direct monetary fashion would backfire, eroding the perceived advantage of driving electric that Tesla Motors has worked so hard to establish. Yes, even if it ultimately 'cost less' than paying for gasoline -- which as noted already, I do not believe can be done profitably.
In case I haven't mentioned it already, maybe sixty or seventy times, in this thread already...? Here in Los Angeles, that would be more like $9.00 to go 150 miles instead. Even gas stations make their money from food, drink, and convenience items, above and beyond the cost of the gasoline or diesel fuel they provide. I believe that in order for electric vehicles to be universally accepted, they must be immediately, demonstrably, entirely less expensive to own and operate than comparable ICE vehicles. In order for Supercharger access in a pay-per-use, or per month, or per hour, or per kWh situation to equal the profitability of a gas station, so that Tesla Motors could become 'The NeXT EXXON!!!' it would be necessary for the fees that cover that Supercharger access to cost more per mile than gasoline.
There is no reason to charge incremental 'at the pump' fees for Supercharger access unless your intent is to either: 1) discourage use; or 2) make a profit. The notion that it would be done to 'break even' is simply ridiculous. I believe Tesla Motors wants to encourage Supercharger use. I believe that an attempt to profit from Superchargers in a direct monetary fashion would backfire, eroding the perceived advantage of driving electric that Tesla Motors has worked so hard to establish. Yes, even if it ultimately 'cost less' than paying for gasoline -- which as noted already, I do not believe can be done profitably.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
No one says the PPU rate has to be profitable. The supercharger network is not profitable today anyways as a unit (it is subsidized as a split between car sales and advertising expense). All PPU does is provide a bit of extra revenue, give more options to the buyer, and provide a way to control usage. You may be opposed to it, but from the polls obviously a lot of people want that option.
Garlan Garner
Banned
The vote is pretty much 50/50. "A lot of people do and a lot of people don't". With that said..... "There are obviously a lot of people that Don't want that option".
wallet.dat
Member
Garlan Garner
Banned
More and More on the streets of the world each week. Don't worry about congestion.
Tesla loves Spain in return with Supercharger expansion across country
Tesla loves Spain in return with Supercharger expansion across country
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes, but Red Sage has continually argued that PPU shouldn't even be an option. A 50/50 split shows that is not consistent with the wishes of many others. It would be a different story if people overwhelmingly voted for a one time fee.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm thinking they'd much rather produce a car with longer range if they could. The number of costly SC stations required is inversely proportional to the car's range. I don't see the benefit for Tesla to create that type of dependency for long-distance travel as it's more of a necessary evil.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Two weeks ago Elon stated that its amazingly simple to create a car with a 300+ mile range. They could eliminate the frunk and trunk and fill it with batteries. Also, the MS would have 0 options and only 1 motor. The question at a$100K price point...who would buy a $100K car with no options and only 1 motor? That price point wouldn't work.
One of the primary benefits for Tesla concerning SC's is that they are the only one in the game doing it. States/Cities/Countries are loving the all-in-one EV profile. You can buy their car and charge at their stations and get anywhere in the US that you want. That sells!!! Most people that are able to purchase an MS/MX loaded are seemingly more concerned about convenience than price. Tesla is providing convenience which is in turn selling cars. Their SC's are selling cars.
Tesla loves Spain in return with Supercharger expansion across country
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Hrm? The 120kW battery (5 years of 5-10% battery improvement per year, figured at the low end) will provide all of 350 miles range. No loss of trunk or frunk or AWD necessary.
Now, 500 miles... at this point a different story but who's to say what will be in 10 years? Porsche will probably offer such a battery along with, say, a network of 4 800A SCs just to say they did. Not all that practical, but if you've ever tried to option a Porsche, you're used to it.
Now, 500 miles... at this point a different story but who's to say what will be in 10 years? Porsche will probably offer such a battery along with, say, a network of 4 800A SCs just to say they did. Not all that practical, but if you've ever tried to option a Porsche, you're used to it
.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Garlan Garner
Banned
Did he? WOW. I suppose that's par for the course ( If you know what I mean).
I wonder if its worth taking a poll as to who believes there will be a 2017 delivery. LOL
Similar threads
- Poll