How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[Bimbels]

I'm a current owner of a leased S. My lease is up in 2018 and I expect to jump into a 3 then.

I want pay per use.

What percentage of current owners want/don't want pay per use? I missed that survey.

Curious, Chad - do you want pay per use for all tesla owners going forward, or just the model 3?

As an owner, you paid for your supercharging in the price of your car. If that price was decoupled for the 3, but it was a separate paid option, why would that not be acceptable?

 

[mhan00]

Then THAT guy is a jerk and should be reminded of charger etiquette. But that doesn't mean all are or will be jerks.

It only takes a few to ruin the experience for all.

 

[ImEric]

"Pay per (insert whatever here); Assume cost is similar to 50mpg car ~$6/150 miles"

Shouldn't we assume that the cost would be something closer to a 100 mpg ICE? This will be one of the most efficient cars ever produced and it's heavier, bigger, less aerodynamic stablemate is already at 90+mpge, depending on which one you get.

 

[ChadFeldheimer]

The survey does not say " who does not want..." It says - Which charging option do you prefer?

Currently the vote is
142 - Supercharging
172 - Pay per use.


Amazingly close.

I'm looking for a survey/study limited to current owners. There is a claim that the vast majority of current owners don't want pay per use - which is not readily apparent to me.

 

[ImEric]

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?)

There's an option that combines pay up front with pay-per-use. The car has to communicate with the Supercharger every time you charge, either way. So if you pay a large sum up front, let's say $2000.00, and it applies kWh credits and/or time credits to your vehicle that are equivalent to what you would need to drive about 50k Miles on the supercharger network (let's say about 12,000 kWh of electricity), then you could drive up to the supercharger, plug in, use your credits, and slowly watch them dwindle away over the years. You'd have to arrive with a near 0 state of charge and fill up about 250 times before you'd use all of kWhs. Judging from anecdotes on these forums and Tesla's comments over the years, most people would probably never run out of supercharger credits. However, you get a different feeling when you are watching your SC stash go away everyday than you'd get if you knew that you have unlimited use of the supercharges for the rest of your car's life. There would still be some people who would realize that they're never going to run out and still go out of their way to use the supercharger, but I imagine that would decrease significantly. Even more so if you made each kWh more expensive, perhaps an average of about $0.20/kWh

 

[ChadFeldheimer]

Curious, Chad - do you want pay per use for all tesla owners going forward, or just the model 3?

As an owner, you paid for your supercharging in the price of your car. If that price was decoupled for the 3, but it was a separate paid option, why would that not be acceptable?

All owners moving forward is my preference.

The current prepaid situation is, actually, acceptable to me - obvious as I bought into the situation under my own free will. But my preference remains.

If there is a marginal cost to use, available resources will be allocated more efficiently. And that means a supercharger stall is more likely to be available to me when I (or anyone else) needs it.

I'm planning a cross country road trip to the west coast this year, from Illinois. I'm 50-50 on taking the Tesla vs my ICE, which is really unfortunate as the Tesla is a joy to drive. I value my time to the extent that I won't pull into a gas station on the left side of the road (two left turns vs two right). From this perspective, the potential of needing to wait 10 minutes for a supercharger to open up is a significant obstacle. I'm not concerned about super chargers enroute to the west coast, but at my destination (Bay Area).

Also, I believe pay per use will accelerate the transition to EVs. By maintaining zero marginal cost to use, Tesla is inhibiting the growth of third party DC fast charging stations - which I believe to be important to a robust EV marketplace. Prepaid supercharger access is essentially vendor lock in. There is currently little incentive for a third party to create an L3 network as every long range EV owner already has a zero marginal cost alternative.

 

[Trips]

It will be very, difficult for Tesla to charge by the kWh in any form. If they want to do that they will have to become 51 separate power companies. Each state has different regulations, taxes and entry costs. Yes, they can still have an unlimited package but EM does not that.

Charging for parking by the minute seems to be the way to go. It encourages people not to park there all day. It encourages people to stop at 90% when the speed slows down. Most importantly they are not charging for electricity as they are only charging for parking.

 

[Bimbels]

All owners moving forward is my preference.

The current prepaid situation is, actually, acceptable to me - obvious as I bought into the situation under my own free will. But my preference remains.

If there is a marginal cost to use, available resources will be allocated more efficiently. And that means a supercharger stall is more likely to be available to me when I (or anyone else) needs it.

I'm planning a cross country road trip to the west coast this year, from Illinois. I'm 50-50 on taking the Tesla vs my ICE, which is really unfortunate as the Tesla is a joy to drive. I value my time to the extent that I won't pull into a gas station on the left side of the road (two left turns vs two right). From this perspective, the potential of needing to wait 10 minutes for a supercharger to open up is a significant obstacle. I'm not concerned about super chargers enroute to the west coast, but at my destination (Bay Area).

Also, I believe pay per use will accelerate the transition to EVs. By maintaining zero marginal cost to use, Tesla is inhibiting the growth of third party DC fast charging stations - which I believe to be important to a robust EV marketplace. Prepaid supercharger access is essentially vendor lock in. There is currently little incentive for a third party to create an L3 network as every long range EV owner already has a zero marginal cost alternative.

Tesla waited around for 3rd parties and gave up. So they did it on their own. That is when their sales took off - and where sales are most dominant - where the network is the best. I see your point about free access inhibiting third parties but I don't see any third parties even close to stepping up to the plate in terms of density and speed. I'm sure Chevy and Nissan would be happy (maybe they are also waiting) with a 3rd party - but it's still not happening. Perhaps more BEV competition and a common standard are what need to happen first. Maybe for now it's a double edged sword...

Personally, I see the way tesla does things as necessary to build out the SuC network, which has been a major catalyst to bring customers to Tesla (and for many, to EV.) I know that's why we did. The supercharger network is what made me realize my commute was possible with an EV. As things are today, it sets tesla apart from all other manufacturers.

Right now I think building the network is the more important thing. If tesla says they can continue to build out the network with a pay per use option then maybe I'd change my mind. .

Plus, I think the way it's done now is easy. For me and for Tesla.

 

[Fourdoor]

Are you implying that there is no relation between considerate behavior and level of income/education?

Hmmm, looks to me like higher education and $$$ may lead people to be arrogant assholes that would be considerate to other rich people and piss on all us low class peons... so to answer your question, yes there does seem to be a relation between considerate behavior and level of income/education.

Keith

 

[Fourdoor]

Selling a one time widget is amazingly simple. Selling an ongoing repeating product with an account is not easy.

Pay as you go is NOT trivial.

How about this.....I call in and need to talk to someone ( who does not yet exist ) about how someone hacked my account and I got charged for "pay as I go" and I wasn't even there that day. I was there the following day but only stayed at the SC for 1 hour instead of the 3 hours you charged me. I want my 2 hours back off my account and whatever was charged the previous day.
Of course the entire complaint is a lie....I just want free credit if I can get it.

The company I work for (AT&T) has tons of people that we have had to hire to handle these issues. I used to be one of them.

Selling a one time product such as 2K for life is easy. Its a one time purchase. Easily traceable.

In any case....thank God pay as you go will not happen.

Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright

How many times has your cell phone account been hacked? Your e-mail account? Your bank account?

Get lifelock and get over it!

Do a month by month subscription vs unlimited for life for people who only need occasional access... no "you charged me for 3 hours instead of 1 hour" that way. Make the price 1/12 of unlimited for life and people who supercharge regularly will go unlimited (that would be me in my current situation) and other people would do month by month as needed... and Tesla would make more money off of them in the long run.

The primary reason you are seeing products such as:

Unlimited Talk
Unlimited Text
Unlimited Data
Unlimited Car Washes
Unlimited Oil Changes
Rent a car get Unlimited Miles
Unlimited.... everything is because its cheaper for the company to provide it.

You can get rid of all of the people - databases - computers - headaches concerning keeping up with per charge complaints and lies by customers.

AT&T got rid of 1/2 of its billing support department because of "unlimited plans".

Most of these things you list are not "unlimited for life". You pay a monthly fee for as long as you want them, and you can start and stop service as often as you like. The old school cell phone companies do a contract, but there are plenty of "month by month" systems out there for Cell phones.

Why didn't sprint, AT&T and Verizon charge $5000 for unlimited for life cell phones in order to build out the cell phone network? Because it is not the most profitable business model.

Keith

 

[Garlan Garner]

It will be very, difficult for Tesla to charge by the kWh in any form. If they want to do that they will have to become 51 separate power companies. Each state has different regulations, taxes and entry costs. Yes, they can still have an unlimited package but EM does not that.

Charging for parking by the minute seems to be the way to go. It encourages people not to park there all day. It encourages people to stop at 90% when the speed slows down. Most importantly they are not charging for electricity as they are only charging for parking.

Excellent point.
SC's would have different KWH prices per location. Just like ICE gas stations. That would be Ludicrous.

 

[Garlan Garner]

How many times has your cell phone account been hacked? Your e-mail account? Your bank account?

Get lifelock and get over it!

Do a month by month subscription vs unlimited for life for people who only need occasional access... no "you charged me for 3 hours instead of 1 hour" that way. Make the price 1/12 of unlimited for life and people who supercharge regularly will go unlimited (that would be me in my current situation) and other people would do month by month as needed... and Tesla would make more money off of them in the long run.



Most of these things you list are not "unlimited for life". You pay a monthly fee for as long as you want them, and you can start and stop service as often as you like. The old school cell phone companies do a contract, but there are plenty of "month by month" systems out there for Cell phones.

Why didn't sprint, AT&T and Verizon charge $5000 for unlimited for life cell phones in order to build out the cell phone network? Because it is not the most profitable business model.

Keith

Why don't you understand the crux behind my message?

I'm not talking about paying for life vs. paying monthly. That's not the discussion. geesh.

I'm saying that paying per unit per time used vs. paying for unlimited are the 2 sides of the issue.

Either pay per time/usage for widgets.
Or get unlimited widgets for a price. I don't care how often you pay ( once or monthly ).

You don't pay car insurance by mile
You don't pay homeowners taxes based on how many hours spent in the house.
etc....its all unlimited usage - even if you have to pay for unlimited per month.

Get it?

 

[jgs]

You don't pay car insurance by mile

Nit: State Farm offers a low-mileage discount. I assume this
Is a common practice in the industry. So there's at least some sensitivity to it, albeit still not per-mile as such.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why don't you understand the crux behind my message?

I'm not talking about paying for life vs. paying monthly. That's not the discussion. geesh.

I'm saying that paying per unit per time used vs. paying for unlimited are the 2 sides of the issue.

Either pay per time/usage for widgets.
Or get unlimited widgets for a price. I don't care how often you pay ( once or monthly ).

You don't pay car insurance by mile
You don't pay homeowners taxes based on how many hours spent in the house.
etc....its all unlimited usage - even if you have to pay for unlimited per month.

Get it?

Actually I'm on AT&T for both my home phone and cellphones. Both of them are limited in some way (home phone limited in minutes, cell phone limited in data). AT&T killed off the unlimited data plan because a few people abused it (which sounds suspiciously like what might happen here).

They made minutes and texts unlimited for cell phones for different reasons. Texts are low bandwidth in the first place. Minutes they made unlimited because demand dropped with the switch to data and text based communication (AKA social media and texting). However, we aren't seeing the same demand drop in superchargers, in fact Tesla is preparing for a explosion of demand (much like demand for data).

 

[zenmaster]

It will be very, difficult for Tesla to charge by the kWh in any form.

Why do people keep bringing this up? It's a red herring. They'd only need to charge for the stall occupancy or any service being provided there.

 

[jgs]

AT&T killed off the unlimited data plan

Yes.

because a few people abused it

I guess it really does mirror the SC debate, since my immediate reaction to this comment was "by definition you can't abuse something that's unlimited. When you cross the line into abuse, that line is called... a limit. Contradiction, Q.E.D."

(Anyway, AT&T was actually reasonably classy about how they got rid of unlimited. They just stopped offering it to new accounts and provided incentives to existing ones to move off, AFAIK they didn't renege.)

 

[Garlan Garner]

Actually I'm on AT&T for both my home phone and cellphones. Both of them are limited in some way (home phone limited in minutes, cell phone limited in data). AT&T killed off the unlimited data plan because a few people abused it (which sounds suspiciously like what might happen here).

They made minutes and texts unlimited for cell phones for different reasons. Texts are low bandwidth in the first place. Minutes they made unlimited because demand dropped with the switch to data and text based communication (AKA social media and texting). However, we aren't seeing the same demand drop in superchargers, in fact Tesla is preparing for a explosion of demand (much like demand for data).

That's just not correct. I have unlimited text talk and data on all of my cell phones with AT&T. So I know that is incorrect.

We hare already been informed that unlimited SC will continue to be offered...so that's now a non-issue.

Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright

 

[Garlan Garner]

Yes.

I guess it really does mirror the SC debate, since my immediate reaction to this comment was "by definition you can't abuse something that's unlimited. When you cross the line into abuse, that line is called... a limit. Contradiction, Q.E.D."

(Anyway, AT&T was actually reasonably classy about how they got rid of unlimited. They just stopped offering it to new accounts and provided incentives to existing ones to move off, AFAIK they didn't renege.)

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about. I just ordered unlimited text/talk/data through AT&T a month ago. - on all 4 of my phones as a single package.

Call them....they will sell unlimited everything to you.

 

[Garlan Garner]

My fellow employees were let go when they started offering unlimited talk/text/data 6 months ago. They let them go because there would be no need to discuss phone data and text usage with unlimited users. Customers weren't calling in for support issues concerning talk text and data anymore.

 

[ohmman]

You don't pay car insurance by mile
You don't pay homeowners taxes based on how many hours spent in the house.
etc....its all unlimited usage - even if you have to pay for unlimited per month.

GG is in favor of recurring monthly Supercharger fees. It's here. Everyone, bask in it.