How would you prefer to pay for Supercharging?

[Red Sage]

Now that Tesla has made the $2k SC fee an option.... its all good.

I doubt the fee will be that high for Model ☰. My guess is that it could be as low as $500. It was only $2,000 for the original Model S 60 upon its initial release, if requested while ordering. The fee was $2,500 if you requested the feature after the car was Delivered. That Model S 60 was Discontinued at one point last year in favor of the Model S 70D, which was joined by the Model S 70 a few months later, and each of those came with Supercharger access enabled by default. The current, recently added Model S 60, costs less than the original, and has Supercharger access included, without restriction.

 

[Red Sage]

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.

C'mon, MAN! Really? You want to blame Tesla Motors for the fact that ineffectual, poorly run, badly placed, often nonworking chargers from third parties aren't expanding faster than Supercharger locations? Do us the favor of pointing out the third party that intended to set up a nationwide system of Level 3 DC fast chargers to rival the capabilities of the Supercharger network at any point during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. Also, show us the cars they intended to power with those chargers. Geez, this reminds me of 'The Little Red Hen' all over again.

 

[SSD420]

My only point is this. Companies are offering more unlimited products than every before. Why? For the consumer? Absolutely not. Because - Its more profitable.
Period.
I'm not just listing stuff. I'm making a point that companies are moving in that direction and that the reason is that it's profitable. Is everything unlimited - no. However there are a record number of unlimited widgets out there.

Its a non arguable truth.

Offering unlimited is a way to real people in. When the company makes changes, the consumers are so used to having unlimited that they often opt for the more expensive, less restrictive plans. Or stay in old outdated plans just to keep their unlimited status.

 

[alseTrick]

Ummm, you realize that article is pure speculation? Could have been written by anyone from this thread, and as condescendingly as it was worded I suspect it may have been!

You linked to this page multiple times as if it were the words of Prophet Elon given from on high rather than being just another internet opinion...

Keith

Completely agree.

That "article" can be summed up in two sentences:

"Tesla continues to build superchargers. They aren't going to add a pay per use option because, well, because I don't like it."

 

[Fourdoor]

C'mon, MAN! Really? You want to blame Tesla Motors for the fact that ineffectual, poorly run, badly placed, often nonworking chargers from third parties aren't expanding faster than Supercharger locations? Do us the favor of pointing out the third party that intended to set up a nationwide system of Level 3 DC fast chargers to rival the capabilities of the Supercharger network at any point during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. Also, show us the cars they intended to power with those chargers. Geez, this reminds me of 'The Little Red Hen' all over again.
View attachment 181205

The problem is that a third party with "standard" J1772 CCS operating only from investments and proceeds from the chargers can not compete with a proprietary charging network supported by crap loads of $$$ from investors and vehicle sales.

If we go back to the gas station analogy where Ford motor company provides proprietary filling stations with free gasoline to Ford vehicles only, and the majority of gasoline powered cars on the road are Fords... how well would an independent gas station compete with the Ford fueling network? The only customers likely to use the non-Ford filling stations are the other gasoline powered cars on the road, so your customer base is automatically cut to less than 50% of all available customers... then you add in not getting expansion money from vehicle sales and no non-Ford fueling network can hope to expand as rapidly. Back to reality and EV's, even in areas with "good" coverage, you get one ChadeMo and one non-ChadeMo (some CCS, some just the DC plug) vs a Tesla Supercharger with 8 or more charging stations.

Sad thing about this is that if GM had the will, they could have a charging network that rivaled the Tesla Supercharger network in one year, and able to blow it out of the water in less than 5... the amount of money GM has available makes putting chargers at each and every Chevy dealership a trivial expense... but they refuse to do so.

Keith

PS: the "more than 50% blah blah blah is based on projected sales of the Model 3 plus other Tesla models in my "ford filling station" analogy above.

 

[Vic4Model3]

I plan on using Super Charging only a few weeks each year so if unlimited SC is more than $1000, forget about it.
The rest of the time, charging will be done at home.

 

[Weezer Fan]

I will only use the Superchargers from Denver to Kansas City once or twice a year. Doesn't make sense to spend a large upfront cost to do that. And if I can't Supercharge, I can't drive to KC. If they charge over $1K for Supercharging, this is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Anyone willing to pay $99 USD for their own charging station?

Smartphone Supercharger

 

[Garlan Garner]

Or...hey guess what.

There's a Charging Station out there for $586K

Free Tesla Charging Station With Purchase of Ranch


and it comes with a ranch.

 

[ChadFeldheimer]

Do us the favor of pointing out the third party that intended to set up a nationwide system of Level 3 DC fast chargers to rival the capabilities of the Supercharger network at any point during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. Also, show us the cars they intended to power with those chargers.

Strawman. Doesn't have to be nationwide or rival the Supercharger network to be useful. The supercharger network is fantastic, but still far from perfect. For example, there's obvious areas for improvement in density, but near impossible for others to justify investment because they would always serve as a second source.

You want to blame Tesla Motors for the fact that ineffectual, poorly run, badly placed, often nonworking chargers from third parties aren't expanding faster than Supercharger locations?

The big picture is that I'm not assigning blame at all. I can see how the existing model currently makes sense. I can also see that it won't make sense indefinitely. I estimate that 80-90% of the supercharger network's cost to date has been in infrastructure - with the balance in electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, as it turns out, total cost to date per vehicle delivered rings in right around $2000. When they started the network, they had a clear path to ~$20k gross margins per car. So it made sense to charge for infrastructure and sweep the cost of use under the table.

Moving forward, as the population of vehicles ages and network coverage completes, costs will shift towards electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, margins will be lower as the product mix shifts towards mass market. There will be pressure to change the model.

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.

But I'm also not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore how it could be better.

Pay per use would be better.

 

[diamond.g]

Strawman. Doesn't have to be nationwide or rival the Supercharger network to be useful. The supercharger network is fantastic, but still far from perfect. For example, there's obvious areas for improvement in density, but near impossible for others to justify investment because they would always serve as a second source.



The big picture is that I'm not assigning blame at all. I can see how the existing model currently makes sense. I can also see that it won't make sense indefinitely. I estimate that 80-90% of the supercharger network's cost to date has been in infrastructure - with the balance in electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, as it turns out, total cost to date per vehicle delivered rings in right around $2000. When they started the network, they had a clear path to ~$20k gross margins per car. So it made sense to charge for infrastructure and sweep the cost of use under the table.

Moving forward, as the population of vehicles ages and network coverage completes, costs will shift towards electricity and ongoing maintenance. Furthermore, margins will be lower as the product mix shifts towards mass market. There will be pressure to change the model.

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.

But I'm also not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore how it could be better.

Pay per use would be better.

This is why I am curious to see how Chevy is going to handle the Bolt and long distance charging.

 

[melindav]

Unfortunately, while they've solving the chicken+egg problem for themselves, they haven't done it for anyone else.

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".

 

[ETravel]

I plan on buying and not leasing M3. I usually keep my cars for a long time. A pre paid price $1000 or less works for me since I will be charging at home most of the time. Everyone in the forum who already owns a Tesla says they drive more than they use to. So who knows a cost greater than $1,000 ,may work for me. Since options are cheaper at time of ordering I will a purchase the option then if it is priced right for me.

 

[JoRey]

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.

 

[N5329K]

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

 

[Shopaholic]

Another interesting idea?

In Sweden, your next car-charging spot could be at someone else's house

 

[melindav]

Another interesting idea?

In Sweden, your next car-charging spot could be at someone else's house

This is essentially what PlugShare.com started out as. You can turn on just "residential" and each location give contact info.

 

[ArtC]

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".

@melindav +1

 

[SageBrush]

C'mon, MAN! Really? You want to blame Tesla Motors for the fact that ineffectual, poorly run, badly placed, often nonworking chargers from third parties aren't expanding faster than Supercharger locations? Do us the favor of pointing out the third party that intended to set up a nationwide system of Level 3 DC fast chargers to rival the capabilities of the Supercharger network at any point during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. Also, show us the cars they intended to power with those chargers. Geez, this reminds me of 'The Little Red Hen' all over again.

I could readilly believe that post was thrown out just so you would have something to munch on.

 

[SageBrush]

Another interesting idea?
In Sweden, your next car-charging spot could be at someone else's house

I was mulling over something like this. Since Tesla will subsidize charging stations for businesses, I wondered about setting one up at my private home. It seemed like a low cost way to promote EVs.