Tesla has made it difficult for other vendors to join by demanding that they share Tesla's "front loaded" pricing scheme. I think this is a huge mistake. It limits the Supercharger to premium cars.
Oh? How exactly? By requiring a 200 mile minimum range, so that the cars that use the system are
'real' cars? By requiring a
'big' battery pack to achieve that range? By insisting that plugin hybrids and short range compliance cars need not apply? Is neither the BMW i3 nor i8 a
'Premium' car? What about the Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric?
...all another EV would need is an appropriate connector and the software to use it (CHAdeMO and CCS demonstrate that their batteries and other innards can...the car may need to limit charge to 50KW or so but that's already part of the protocol).
Perhaps you have missed the point of the Supercharger network. It exists to enable long distance travel between population centers. It also reduces the significant disadvantage that is perceived from having to
'wait to charge'. Thus, it greatly improves the utility and convenience of owning an electric car. By limiting the charge speed you just make things slower and less convenient for EVs. What matters is the number of miles that are added, not the percentage of charge filled, in a particular time frame. Superchargers would have to be built much closer to each other, and most bays would be filled with cheaply built, but overpriced, slow, compliance cars that could barely go 30 miles at a time. Exactly what traditional automobile manufacturers would prefer. Oh, wait... That would be DUMB.
A pay per use scheme with separate billing would save $2-3K from the initial cost of the car. That front loaded cost is being used to build out the network, but the market is small enough that it's frustratingly slow. a bigger company would not have to wait.
You are assuming facts that are not in evidence. A pay-per-use scheme would be the same as the current ICE Age principle -- the costs of
'fueling' your vehicle go on, and on, and on, and on
ad infinitum. Compared to gassing up, even if gasoline were $1.00 per gallon, and you found something that legitimately got 50 MPG... That would come to $240 to travel 12,000 miles per year, and $300 to go 15,000 miles per year. Let's see, how many of the Model ≡ direct competitors
(Acura TLX, AUDI A4, BMW 3-Series, Cadillac ATS, Infiniti Q50, Jaguar XE, Lexus IS, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class) get 50 MPG... Oh, wait... NONE of them! And you know what? FREE still costs a lot less than gasoline. The
'bigger' automotive companies have universally stated they have exactly ZERO interest in building a network of chargers, of any type, EVER.
The Bolt is a big risk for Tesla. It's the first car that even comes close on any of the things that are special about Teslas, and if the 3 isn't competitive with it on price and convenience of long-trip charging, then Tesla risks losing a lot of market share fast.
Wait... Hunh? What?!? The BOLT isn't a
'risk' -- or a
'threat' -- at ALL! It is a first shaky clumsy incomplete step toward the reality that Tesla Motors has hoped for since its inception. The point is to ACCELERATE THE TRANSITION TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES. And the BOLT is meeting the parameters that Tesla insisted upon regarding fully electric range, instead of being a hybrid plugin. But since GM is aiming low, for perhaps a 30,000 unit market -- barely what the LEAF has managed at its best -- it represents no problem at all for Tesla, who are aiming for 500,000 units per year of Model ≡ by 2020 from Fremont alone. There is NO CHARGING NETWORK coming from GM. They don't even have a charging STRATEGY in place.
The X is so similar to the S that it's largely cannibalizing S market share instead of bringing new customers in. two fizzles in a row could kill Tesla.
Well that there is just flat out WRONG. Model S sales have INCREASED since the Model X was launched. There is no cannibalization. People buy what they want, what they need, and what they can afford. Once Model X Production is fully online, so that a new order can reach a Customer in three months or less, I fully expect the popularity of Model X to show in force. While Model S sales show no sign of faltering, and continue to lead the class.
GM holds a lot of cards here: They could embrace supercharging and build a lot more supercharger stations, which would be good for both Tesla and the Bolt. OR, They could go with CHAdeMO or CCS and install 1000 long-trip charge stations in the US in a few months, which would pretty much force Tesla drivers to buy the adapter and undermine growth of the supercharger network for the foreseeable future--no matter how superior the technology may be, convenience and good enough will win. OR, they could do their own version of what Tesla is doing and build their own incompatible network, and make it very expensive for others to use it.
Those cards are not very good. Could after could after could... Equals a whole bunch of IFs. Tesla Motors is holding TRUMPS. Once again, General Motors has specifically stated, MULTIPLE TIMES, that they have NO INTEREST in building a charging network of any kind, using any standard whatsoever, whether Tesla, SAE, or Japanese designed. Period.
I guarantee that there's a big faction in the marketing department at GM that wants to do this, and the possibility of killing Tesla is seen as a good thing by them. I hope wiser heads prevail, but it wouldn't be the first time greed for short term profits beat out the long term good of the industry at GM.
One problem with the strategy of
'killing Tesla'... In order to offer a car that kills the Model ≡, GM also has to build something that will
'kill' the Chevrolet Malibu, Buick LaCrosse, and Cadillac ATS. Tesla Motors has no problem with that at all. Git 'er done.
Here... Have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster... Don't forget your towel on the way out... And, oh, for the record...? Slartibartfast was better.
42.
