I wonder if they'll include a cap on the amount you can use the supercharger network with the model 3. For example you can only recharge an average of once per week, or a certain number of kWh. Given that it must be tracking which cars use which chargers, I'm sure they can track that. Then to go beyond it won't work unless you've a card registered to your Tesla account.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What if I am on a 2 month vacation zig-zagging around the country? I might be SpC multiple times every day. You are either going to be able to use it or not. I do suspect it will be a ~$2,000 option to help keep the $35k base price. (Assuming that the base battery is SpC compatible, in which case it might cost another $3-7k to get the SpC turned on.)
This is a very interesting problem I have seen debated here quite a bit with the issue of local users of superchargers. Any sort of time/distance rules get pretty hard because you can always make a case for why you might be using a supercharger near your home (extra range charge to make the jump to the next one at the start of a trip), or why you would be hitting multiple over the course of a few days (road trip!)
But capping kWh use on a larger annual basis might work. An amount that would be plenty for road trips, but not enough for daily charging in lieu of a home charger. But this would have to be made VERY clear when you buy what the terms are. Current statements by Musk seem to indicate superchargers will be free for life, but then there are the letters sent to people who are using their superchargers "too much". Clear terms and conditions on supercharger usage would be helpful in general.
flankspeed8
Member
It is possible that the Model 3 will have a more explicit/restrictive TOS for the Super Charger than the X and S which would make sense. They could place caps or limits but still include SC in the base.
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
Personally as i've discussed in various other forums, i strongly belief that supercharging should come as standard. But with a completely different model, it should be a pay for use Model. This model solves two problems A overuse of the supercharging network and B a way to make the Model III more attractive. It should be priced per kWh, and im sure Tesla could make that model work. This model is only applicable to people who dont travel much, and it should be used with conjunction with Tesla's current model. Clearly if an individual goes cross-country often and will be using the Tesla network constantly. Then it is best to pay for the current model. However for people like myself, who rarely venture out of Socal and stay within the range of the car. It simply does not make sense to pay 1500 for said option. I also think their should be a cap for local charging, an individual does not need a supercharger if their home is < 10 miles. Plus if an individual lives in an apartment, they should pay for use. Never the less i still like the ability to go cross country with my car. Finally if i buy a 500 dollar adapter, i expect to be able to use it with no limitations and at my discretion.
That only works in some states, in other states you can't charge per kWh unless you are a utility. So Tesla would have to charge per use or by time on those states. (And I wouldn't think that they would want to price it differently in different states, but Blink does...)
But, in any case Elon has said many times that Supercharging will be free, so I really don't think that they are going to bother with charging anything but a one-time fee to enable it.
And just like on the Model S don't expect to be able to buy and use a CHAdeMO adapter if you haven't paid to have Supercharging enabled. (They are linked at least on the S.) They could change that but why, the $2,000 for Supercharging was at least partially to cover the DC fast charger hardware that they put in every car because it was easier.
One thing that I think just has to be included in every EV - especially longer range EVs - is hardware and software to charge the car with DC. Yes, I have no problem with a fee to get "free for lifetime (of the car)" access to a large DC charging network like the Supercharger network, and I have no problem with adding a fee for an extra adapter to use other chargers then what's included default - like ChaDemo and/or CCS. But I will be very disappointed if I have to pay for SuperCharger access to be able to use ChaDemo and/or CCS. This is now (or at least should be) a thing of the past (TMS60).
But really, what I hope they do (at least here in Europe) is to replace the Type2 charging port in the car with a CCS port. It will still be Type2 (AC) compatible, and I don't see any reason for it to not still be SuperCharger compatible, but the use of any adapter will be deprecated. And I would expect the CCS protocol (if it has this port) to be enabled by default in the basic version without any extra charges.
Well since the $2,000 was mainly to cover the cost of the DC charger hardware in the car the only two choices for having CHAdeMO and/or CCS is that DC charging comes standard and the $2,000 is baked in to the $35k base price, or DC fast charging is an option and you have to pay the extra, ~$2,000, for it. Maybe they could split that and have it ~$1,500 for the DC fast charger, and a separate $500 for the Supercharger access... But that runs against the KISS principle, so I doubt they will do that. I suspect you will either get DC fast charging or not.
Personally I think the DC fast charger and Supercharging will be built in to the $35k base, but that may mean that they move things you might expect would be standard to an option package to keep the base price low. I guess we will know in about 2 years. :smile:
The biggest problem with that is that CCS is an ugly kludge that needs to be shot before it spreads any further beyond Europe. EU are preventing new standards from being decided by the market by legislating CCS before the market has grown enough.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'd be OK with a 1 cent per hour or 1 cent per charge session or 1 cent per kWh just so you could get a month tally of use.
Anyone poor enough to care would still be beating the local cost of electricity and anyone rich enough to not care could laugh about how many "points" they've used.
Use it as a beta test of monitization for after 2020. Start with no CC or payment method but work out the logging and email notification.
Wait a few years and worry about adding the payment method later when you actually care.
When everyone is used to the idea enable the 1 cent per whatver metric and actually charge it just to say it isn't "free" but still make it clear it really is "cheap".
Anyone poor enough to care would still be beating the local cost of electricity and anyone rich enough to not care could laugh about how many "points" they've used.
Use it as a beta test of monitization for after 2020. Start with no CC or payment method but work out the logging and email notification.
Wait a few years and worry about adding the payment method later when you actually care.
When everyone is used to the idea enable the 1 cent per whatver metric and actually charge it just to say it isn't "free" but still make it clear it really is "cheap".
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
I have proposed in other threads a simple, progressive charging system to discourage abuse of Superchargers. This should keep Supercharger Stalls available to most real users.
Once abuse has been throttled, the cost of opening Superchargers for free, "normal" charging, can be absorbed as a very reasonable advertising cost for all Teslas.
- First hour free — This is enough time for most, normal Supercharge sessions. Send a text message to owner at 0:45 warning that expenses start at 1:00.
- Second hour, charge $0.10 per minute ($6 per hour) — This is a minor charge for most, but gets attention to move car. Send texts at 1:30 and 1:45 that rates go up a lot at 2:00.
- Third hour and beyond, charge $1 per minute ($60 per hour) — For most owners, this is enough of a cost to get attention...
Once abuse has been throttled, the cost of opening Superchargers for free, "normal" charging, can be absorbed as a very reasonable advertising cost for all Teslas.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
What happens in cold weather or heavy load situations, when you're on a trip and need to "range charge", and through no fault of your own, it takes a longer amount of time to top off?
Wow. This is probably the simplest and most logical alternative I've seen so far. It makes sense to the customer, is easy to bill and should reduce abuse.
The smaller Model S battery should still not need any more than about 75 minutes for a full charge, right? So maybe the first 75 minutes are free, then the $0.10/minute starts after that.
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
But really said:
Why would Tesla replace or modify their port? When the port they use in Europe can charge at 130KWh and the CCS port/cable is ugly not to mention clunky.
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
Thanks!
Good point. I was thinking about "normal" charging. One hour will get you 95-98% charge level when there is no sharing and the battery is at a reasonable temperature. Because, even for a 90, without Supercharger sharing, there is very little time spent in a power limited mode, that 95-98% in an hour should be true for all Teslas in the foreseeable future. OTOH, to allow for 99% charging in almost all situations even with "sharing" and temps, going to an hour and a half free would still stop almost all abuse. Even if there is some creep over the "free" period, the $0.10 per minute is only a slight annoyance for most, and is meant as a reminder rather than punishment. It's hard to argue with a half hour of charging costing less than a latte.
@Cottonwood, I think your proposal is an excellent solution. It would still allow Tesla to say that Supercharging is "free" because for the first 60 (or 75, or whatever) minutes there would be no charge, and the charge for taking up a stall space after that time period is essentially a "parking" fee designed to discourage people from occupying a space when the car is done charging.
As much as I would hate to have too many exceptions to this rule, I'd hate to see these parking restrictions/payments apply to seldom-used or non-abused SCs. But, that's where Tesla can make the system smarter. They could definitely use an alerting system that lets drivers know the SC lot is getting full and that you need to move your car as it's filling up, or they detect low SOC cars incoming and are expecting a rush.
But for your 'rural' 4-stall SCs that hardly see any use comparitively, any bit of restrictions seem too much like nickel & diming.
But for your 'rural' 4-stall SCs that hardly see any use comparitively, any bit of restrictions seem too much like nickel & diming.
Even if the supercharger is seldom used, you should not park there! As of now, you cannot know that there is not someone waiting to charge unless you are there.
I would like to see the charger status board that we were able to see in Hawthorne for awhile available in the cars. Also show cars that are charging, and those that are plugged in and not charging. Then be able to nicely 'ping' the owners of the ones that are finished charging via the app that there are people waiting for their spot.
Just had an add-on thought.
If Tesla had agreements with the private landowners that operate the SCs to have a 'holding area', they could use non-SC stall parking stalls as a place where a Tesla could be 'summoned' to by the car once it's finished charging and if the owner hasn't returned in time.
So, if car A has finished charging, and cars B, C and D are using the remaining stalls (4 total stalls) nothing happens. When car E arrives, if car A detects no driver in the driver seat, it automatically leaves the stall and proceeds to a designated "free-to-park" parking stall _outside_ of the SC area. Car E plugs in and is happy. Obviously car A owner gets the alert and knows where the car is.
All that has to happen is for Tesla to work with each of the SC site owners for a few hours to find a suitable place for overflow (if any) and pay any fees. These could be marked in the car as a SC station that has queuing available.
The same can work in a queuing system, where Tesla has a designated waiting area and the owners can drop their car off and get charged in a first-come, first-served order, but at least the owners don't have to stick around.
Being that it's private property, I don't think Summoning should be too big of a deal for regulatory issues, but I know it can be a grey area.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're splitting hairs. I think we all agree that certain SC manners are required. I'm just saying that I'm not cutting my romantic dessert short just to move my car if there's NO ONE else that needs the spot to charge. It's a Tesla software engineer team's job to find that solution that works best for everyone. They've done a good job so far, but they're a victim of the success of the system.
If Tesla had agreements with the private landowners that operate the SCs to have a 'holding area', they could use non-SC stall parking stalls as a place where a Tesla could be 'summoned' to by the car once it's finished charging and if the owner hasn't returned in time.
So, if car A has finished charging, and cars B, C and D are using the remaining stalls (4 total stalls) nothing happens. When car E arrives, if car A detects no driver in the driver seat, it automatically leaves the stall and proceeds to a designated "free-to-park" parking stall _outside_ of the SC area. Car E plugs in and is happy. Obviously car A owner gets the alert and knows where the car is.
All that has to happen is for Tesla to work with each of the SC site owners for a few hours to find a suitable place for overflow (if any) and pay any fees. These could be marked in the car as a SC station that has queuing available.
The same can work in a queuing system, where Tesla has a designated waiting area and the owners can drop their car off and get charged in a first-come, first-served order, but at least the owners don't have to stick around.
Being that it's private property, I don't think Summoning should be too big of a deal for regulatory issues, but I know it can be a grey area.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're splitting hairs. I think we all agree that certain SC manners are required. I'm just saying that I'm not cutting my romantic dessert short just to move my car if there's NO ONE else that needs the spot to charge. It's a Tesla software engineer team's job to find that solution that works best for everyone. They've done a good job so far, but they're a victim of the success of the system.
I see this all the time - "CCS is ugly", "Frankenplug", etc. Why do people care? It's in your garage. It's not something you look at every day. So what?
Similar threads
- Article
