I think its pretty ridiculous that 7/10 SuC locations in the screen above are in CA. Poor planning on Tesla's part.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Many of the busiest Superchargers in the worlds are in California
- Thread starter tontod
- Start date
I think its pretty ridiculous that 7/10 SuC locations in the screen above are in CA. Poor planning on Tesla's part.
Er, so what Supercharger locations do you expect to see on that list? Places where there are no Teslas?
Bruce.
PS. Now that I’m thinking about it, this little digression doesn’t even belong in this threas. Nevermind.
Well, I do expect to see CA on that list, but not that bad, figure 2-3 would probably be expected. Ok, enough diversion. Have to admit, 70% is pretty bad.
Considering that California has a very high number of Teslas, I am not surprised. And considering that the current level of new Supercharger construction is very high in California, and some of the largest Superchargers in the world are in California (40 stalls in Kettleman City and in also in Baker) it seems that Tesla is in fact doing a lot of planning and building in California.
I really don't understand how it's poor planning? The chart just shows that those locations are serving more Tesla than other locations, because there are more Tesla's around. By your logic if they add more superchargers at those locations because they are congested it will be poor planning, because the stations will go higher on the list. Perhaps they should cut the number of superchargers at Mountain View in half so it's serving less cars and is lower on the list?
TES-E
Member
Poor planning in that the Bay Area should have had these superchargers a few years ago. Up until last year, before San Mateo #2, there was just Mountain View and San Mateo #1, only 2 for the highest Tesla density in the country. Should have been based straight up on tesla density vs. # of superchargers.
It is getting better and long lines like at Mountain View should be getting shorter. Of course, with the highest density in CA, there will be a few CA SuCs on that top 10 list. Worst I have to admit is SD, a city of 3 million with a poorly placed SuC.
I do give credit where its due and Tesla is doing a good job in building up SuCs in the Bay area now. With Gilroy and San Jose hopefully being done later this year, that should help a lot.
Hopefully that helps explaining my "poor planning" comment.
I disagree.
While there are indeed many Teslas in the Bay Area, Superchargers are needed once those owners travel outside the Bay Area. I live right in the center of the SF Peninsula. I do not use any Supercharger on the SF Peninsula or in the East Bay.
Tesla’s initial Supercharger location plans were fine. What screwed up their plans were too many owners using nearby Superchargers to routinely charge instead of charging at home or persuading their workplace to offer charging. Once Tesla realized that was happening they had to change their plans and start building more Superchargers locations in major metropolitan areas and introducing the new “Urban” style Supercharger. And that is what we are seeing now.
To be clear: some Tesla owners live in apartments where landlords refuse to install charging. But that is certainly a very small percentage of all owners. That percentage will grow with increasing numbers of Model 3’s sold, but of course those cars can’t Supercharge for free and that is likely to make a difference.
There have been many threads about “locals overusing Superchargers”. This appears to be yet another such thread.
chibi_kurochan
Member
They need to have separate (higher) supercharging rate for San Diego area alone where electricity rate is one of the highest.
I don't think I understand your logic. This list isn't saying anything about what percentage of stalls are in use or how congested a site is - it's just sorted by the number of kWh delivered. As a result, it's not surprising that CA dominates the list, and Tesla has opened a lot of big new sites to support that.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Once again, the basic premise of this oft-repeated canard is flawed, despite the admirable inclusion in the example above, at least, of a disclaimer wrt the non-garaged.
Here's how it actually is, from someone also at Ground Zero - the primary failure in staying ahead of California demand was *not* garaged owners electing to charge at SCs instead. In order, it was and remains:
1. ICEing by our own - owners not vacating the stalls when their charge is complete.
2. Livery - I don't think I've used the Qualcomm (San Diego) SC one time when there *wasn't* a Tesloop (livery) charging there. Other popular SCs for livery include Redondo Beach, Culver City and Fountain Valley (and to a lesser extent now, SJC and Clemente).
3. Those darned mythical freeloading locals.
4. ICEing by *not* our own.
From the above, Tesla has addressed #1 and #2 via policy changes (of which you are well aware).
#3 is easy to say, but difficult to verify, given that distance commuters tend to blend in with all of the other categories discussed. There is a case to be made on weekends at any SC within proximity of a Costco (see Fountain Valley, Redondo Beach), where one spouse drops off their Tesla and drives off with the other spouse to go shop - however, even then, *you don't know if those people are garaged or not* - and in SoCal at least west of the 405, at least as many people are in MDUs as they are in SFRs.
#4 is rarely seen anymore at least in SoCal and presumably NorCal. The last time I saw it at Redondo, for example, the host property management addressed the issue immediately and that car was moved in less than 2 hours. the reason I list #4 is because of the disproportionate impact when it *does* happen.
Going forward, I'd like to see Tesla increase the idle fees and refine the policy thusly (this relates to #1 above): After 60 minutes lifetime idling, increase rate to $1/hour and require a credit card on file for autobilling. After 120 minutes, $5/hour. Livery has already been addressed. Finally, for the Model 3 peeps, at $0.26/kW, people are going to find out quickly that especially for urban travel, their efficiency may be 45% less than expected, and at an equivalent of 28mpg or thereabouts, will find that their Prius was more efficient by quite a bit.
So in the end, while Tesla's latest forecast map is more than necessary and then some, I don't believe that SCs are in any danger whatsoever of being overrun by Model 3s any more than I did when I gently pointed out that of the first 500,000 produced, only 250,000 at most were destined for the US, and of that maybe 80,000 would be headed to California which is to say at most 40,000/year. Statewide. When I'm in town, I use an SC maybe 1x/week. And that's 100% non-garaged. It's a reasonable average across the board.
All will be well. In Tesla I trust to stay ahead of demand, *and* that doesn't even include the 12,500 L2 and L3s coming statewide courtesy of the 2 largest utilities or all of the excellent work being done by AeroVironment, just to name one forward-thinking company that's excelled at infill elsewhere (see their Chademo and L2 network along coastal Oregon, for example).
this top 10 list looks a lot like the "world's most expensive real estate" list, haha.
cpa
Active Member
Canard! If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. . .
Mr. Jones, I hereby nominate you to regulate the sophistry that runs rampant on selected themes on this site.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Canard! If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. . .
Mr. Jones, I hereby nominate you to regulate the sophistry that runs rampant on selected themes on this site.
You, sir, are a humanitarian. However, I must regrettably duck your kind nomination in recognition that there are only 24 hours in a day. After all, it would take at least 30 hours in a day to even begin to regulate the regulators - let alone the overtly fowl need for periodic regulation in general.
Ketchups
Member
Similar threads
