Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[Ben W]

That won't work. It will end up doing the exact opposite. Either: 1) No one would use them at all, making the EVs less convenient for travel; or 2) The lines would just get longer, and longer, and longer... It would never be profitable. It would never fix anything. It would only make things worse.

Worse than what? Penalizing abuse will result in less abuse than not penalizing abuse, so the lines in the former case would be shorter, not longer. And my suggested system allows supercharging to remain free when used intended (long distance travel), so how could that possibly make "no one use them at all"? I'm afraid I completely don't understand your arguments.

 

[Ben W]

Supercharging enabled = Unlimited supercharging
Supercharging disabled = No supercharging

Supercharging enabled by default with all Tesla vehicles bar the base level Model 3, on which it can be enabled for US$2k.

The revenue from the volume of vehicles being bought will cover the cost for additional sites or stalls.

If Tesla want to discourage local supercharging, just stop building SCs in the middle of cities. Build them on the outskirts, where long distance drivers need them most. Build "citychargers", which are functionally the same as superchargers except not advertised as such, in the cities, and charge for them the same as most other EV charge networks do.

As has been pointed out many times, the "All You Can Eat" paradigm strongly encourages abuse of the system, particularly by users whose opportunity cost of sitting at an SC is lower. (If you're a P90D-owning millionaire, it clearly is not worth your time to sit at a local SC for 30 minutes to save $10 in electricity. But for a middle-class Model-3-owning soccer mom, it likely would be.) There are ~120k Teslas on the road today; the company hopes there will be ~10x that number by 2020, primarily lower-end Model 3's. I don't think Tesla can or wants to build 20-30x more supercharging stations to handle this enormous demand. A pay-per-minute fee will dramatically decrease local charging and abuse, while the long-distance fee waiver will keep long-distance travel just as convenient. (More so, since, the stations will be less busy.)

Tesla would obviously earn less gross revenue from a pay-per-use system (vs. $2k upfront), but it would also probably have to build out 1/2 to 1/3 the number of SC stations to accommodate demand, so should end up far ahead of the game. This system would also dramatically increase the value of the base-model cars, if occasional supercharging were allowed without the $2k upfront fee.

 

[Ben W]

After reading many of these posts, let's consider the main issue for Tesla.
The cost to install monitoring equipment on all these SC chargers.
It would be cheaper to do as some have mentioned and have a flat fee for SC use.

The monitoring equipment is the car itself. Tesla already remotely monitors supercharger status. (I've heard a forthcoming update will push this info to the cars, so you can see how crowded a SC is before you get there.) So the "cost to install" is essentially zero; it already exists. And "cheaper" is illusory; by not implementing a mechanism to curb abuse, Tesla would have to build out many more SC stations (for zero marginal revenue) in order to accommodate demand, which would wind up being a great deal more expensive. So given that they could implement a fair abuse-curbing system for very little cost, that would provide them a huge benefit, it's a no-brainer (to me at least) that they should do it.

 

[Ben W]

The problem with this is that going from 90-100% is a disproportionately long amount of time, and in most cases is equivalent to Supercharger hogging. In some cases, you need that 100% charge, but most of the time you don't. I don't have a great workaround, just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Trickle-charging is problematic, yeah. If the pay-per-minute fee were waived for long-distance travel, perhaps trickle-charging above 90% should not be waived. As the SC system is built out and the spacing decreases, there will be fewer and fewer reasons to supercharge above 90%. (I've only had to do this once; about 2 years ago, to get from Harris Ranch CA to Folsom CA, 202 miles. Since then they've installed a SC in the middle, so the trickle-charge is no longer necessary, even for a 60kWh car.)

 

[Ben W]

I think it would be very difficult for Tesla to implement any kind of pay as you go model on supercharger access. Once Tesla assigns a pay per use value, it becomes nearly impossible to sell lifetime access.

Everyone can do the math and even S owners would be unwilling to accept a $2000 charge if they know they can pay per use for $10. I think that including supercharger access into to cost of the car is the only practical solution for Tesla at this point.

If Tesla can segregate users of the superchargers by offering full service vs. self serve stalls were full service offers faster charging or better access, then you can separate a lifetime fee from pay as you go. Having Tesla employees at the location would also stop abuse.

The point is that Tesla owners that paid money upfront for the lifetime service must receive a clear benefit over pay as you go users otherwise they will not be willing to accept the upfront charge.

Finally, asking some people to be considerate of others or asking them to stop acting like jerks is really a losing battle. There needs to be penalties for abusers or someone policing the superchargers.

They have not been "selling" lifetime access for a while now, at least not as a separate line-item. I don't expect the "$2k unlimited" option to be revived, for either S/X or Model 3. Unlimited charging may continue to be "baked into" the cost of the Model S/X, as a perk for buying the premium model, or they may go to pay-per-use across the board. Either would be fair IMO. As long as S60 buyers who paid the $2k for "lifetime access" continue to receive what they paid for, I don't think they have a basis for complaint if Tesla changes the pay model for other buyers going forward. In fact, they would probably be happy about it, because the new system would reduce SC overcrowding and actually increase the usefulness for everyone (other than abusers of course).

 

[Chuq]

o, my idea would be to sell a $20 24 hour pass, and a $35 48 hour pass. Lets say you just log into your Tesla account, or go onto an app on your phone, select the option you want and pay for it.

But the issue then results in everyone buying the pass just before a long weekend/holiday weekend. And Tesla loses out on the $2k (token amount based on S60 history) they would receive on each car sale (assuming they would drop the price if "universal supercharger access" was replaced with "pay per use supercharger access" - they might not - which would annoy more poeple) which means they would have reduced funds to build out the network (again, there isn't a real life separation between these two revenue sources, they *could* source it from elsewhere, but it's less revenue overall).

 

[MP3Mike]

I think people have complained enough, and Tesla is probably watching, that they are figuring out what they can remove from the base car that costs ~$2k, that was going to be standard, and then will include Supercharger access in the base $35k price. Of course all of that stuff they removed will become a "convenience/feature pack" option that costs $2k that just about everyone will want/need. So now they are charging everyone $2k for it but it is "hidden."

 

[C141medic]

I noticed that Tesla changed the wording of 3 items on their web page for the Model 3. One being supercharging, the other autopilot, and the last the safety features.

Here's a link to the article: Tesla walking back some language around the Model 3’s features: Safety, Autopilot and Supercharger [updated]

Am a little disappointed because I placed my reservation based on the earlier specs and now some of the items that were promised as standard may be fee based options.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

You're obviously not in CA so you have no idea with regard to the status of Supercharger abuse. Until you're waiting for a spot, you're only going to deny it's existence. With a lot more Tesla's in CA and the upcoming Model 3, it will only get worse only you won't see the impact immediately since it will be a slower rollout.

then i suppose, since you put it like that, we'll all feel so sorry for CA Tesla drivers for getting their cars 1st.....

there are pros and cons to living so close to the factory.

 

[Ben W]

I think people have complained enough, and Tesla is probably watching, that they are figuring out what they can remove from the base car that costs ~$2k, that was going to be standard, and then will include Supercharger access in the base $35k price. Of course all of that stuff they removed will become a "convenience/feature pack" option that costs $2k that just about everyone will want/need. So now they are charging everyone $2k for it but it is "hidden."

On the contrary, I highly doubt that prepaid unlimited supercharging will be offered in any Model 3 configuration, whether "baked into" the price or as an add-on option. By switching to pay-per-use, the demand (kW/day/owner) will decrease substantially, thus the SC build-out rate can decrease substantially, thus the cost per car to Tesla will decrease substantially, without sacrificing the convenience of long-distance travel. This will be better for everyone, other than "abusers" who would hog spots or use the SC for everyday local charging.

 

[Az_Rael]

Car Services -- What makes these business drivers any different from door-to-door salesmen, insurance agents, or realtors who spend a lot of time in their cars racking up miles? Miles are miles. There should be no discrimination, or division.

Absolutely nothing makes car services different from realtors. I say commercial use of the superchargers should be handled separately than personal use. Realtors, Uber drivers, taxi services, etc should pay for use of the superchargers. Why should Tesla subsidize someone else's business expenses? Besides, that type of use doesn't really meet the whole "long distance travel" design. Most of those types of business uses are extreme local driving (at least until Tesla sells commercial long-haul trucks).


I predict we will soon see some sort of "terms and conditions of use" for the supercharger network. Just like the $100 Ranger service, this will be unsustainable in the long term.

 

[Red Sage]

After thinking about it, I think a fair solution might be to sell access passes.

 

[Red Sage]

I don't mind spending $10 a charge when traveling. Even better $10 for the charge and $10 an hour parking after the charge is done.

However, very few locals will be willing to pay that, as it would be cheaper to charge at home. And they certainly would not leave there car they any longer than necessary.

I've already seen large numbers of locals at San Diego, and most of the LA area chargers and bay area superchargers. That is with only the relatively few Model S and X owners. Once the Model 3 is out, if there is nothing done to curb locals charging, all superchargers near population centers will be nearly useless, and that will make traveling through those areas extremely difficult.

So, because Supercharging in an urban area ~*might*~ be inconvenient for some people at some unknowable point in the future, your solution is to make it inconvenient for EVERYONE -- ALL THE TIME???

 

[Red Sage]

I say commercial use of the superchargers should be handled separately than personal use.
...
I predict we will soon see some sort of "terms and conditions of use" for the supercharger network. Just like the $100 Ranger service, this will be unsustainable in the long term.

God. This is just like the guy who wants to ban all travel to the US from Countries where a certain religion is prevalent. Sure. Makes plenty of sense. So, what are people going to put on the form?

DO YOU INTEND TO USE THIS VEHICLE FOR BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS?
Choose one: [YES] [NO] (Please, be honest.)

 

[Mkorpal]

View attachment 171569

Oh very funny. I still don't see a better solution to it. I would take the car on one or maybe two road trips per year. Otherwise, the car stays in the city. I'm not spending 2K to take a yearly roadtrip. Either figure out a way to include it in the costs and deal with it, get the price down to the point where it actually makes financial sense for half up to buy access, or make it pay as you go.

And I would say if I did pay 2K for supercharging, I would sure as hell use it for my weekly charge. Kind of defeats the original purpose of the whole system.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

God. This is just like the guy who wants to ban all travel to the US from Countries where a certain religion is prevalent. Sure. Makes plenty of sense. So, what are people going to put on the form?

DO YOU INTEND TO USE THIS VEHICLE FOR BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS?
Choose one: [YES] [NO] (Please, be honest.)

wow. we're all getting a little extreme tonight.........

but in all seriousness, if your car insurance company has the right to deny you coverage if you're an Uber driver (if you don't pay for livery insurance), then why can't Tesla restrict commercial use of their product?

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Oh very funny. I still don't see a better solution to it. I would take the car on one or maybe two road trips per year. Otherwise, the car stays in the city. I'm not spending 2K to take a yearly roadtrip. Either figure out a way to include it in the costs and deal with it, get the price down to the point where it actually makes financial sense for half up to buy access, or make it pay as you go.

And I would say if I did pay 2K for supercharging, I would sure as hell use it for my weekly charge. Kind of defeats the original purpose of the whole system.

no, actually, TESLA's point of Supercharging is to enable long distance travel. If I'm on a 500 mile trip and you're hogging the SC across the street from your house, that makes you...........



well, it requires toilet paper.

 

[Mkorpal]

no, actually, TESLA's point of Supercharging is to enable long distance travel. If I'm on a 500 mile trip and you're hogging the SC across the street from your house, that makes you...........



well, it requires toilet paper.

I'm aware of it, which is why I would not want to do so. But paying 2K upfront for a service that I would use once a year gives me plenty of incentive to actually get my monies worth. I'm not a jerk, but I'm also not a sap.

And by the way, the true point of supercharging is to break down a major barrier to EV adoption. Making the network financially impracticable for a significant portion of people is counterproductive to the whole process.

 

[Red Sage]

Worse than what? Penalizing abuse will result in less abuse than not penalizing abuse, so the lines in the former case would be shorter, not longer. And my suggested system allows supercharging to remain free when used intended (long distance travel), so how could that possibly make "no one use them at all"? I'm afraid I completely don't understand your arguments.

Penalizing EVERYONE is worse, by far, than attempting to prevent 'abuse' that does not exist to begin with. Short lines, or nonexistent lines, to charging stations that are never used, because they are not convenient to ANYONE is not BETTER for the mission to 'accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation'.

Tesla Motors has always been ahead of the curve in terms of deployment of Superchargers relative to population of Owners. And every time there was a sticking point, the solution was obvious and employed in relatively short order.

• Expansion of charging slots at existing Superchargers.
• Installation of new Superchargers between crowded locations.
• Hiring of Valets to move cars as they finish charging, to increase the convenience to others as they arrive at busy Superchargers.

Solutions such as yours would be fine -- if none of those things had been done, or if none of them had worked. But they have worked, and there is no evidence that they will not continue to work if those strategies are employed going forward. Tesla Motors has already announced they will be DOUBLING the ENTIRE SUPERCHARGER NETWORK ahead of the initial release of Model ☰. That action is already being paid for by Generation II vehicles, the Model S and Model X. Do not doubt that further expansion can be covered by those vehicles as well.

Everything at Tesla Motors is about the mission. The Model ☰ is not some afterthought, or distraction, or impending doom. It is the very goal of the company to bring their electric cars to as many people as possible as quickly as possible and with the highest possible level of ease, comfort, and sense of being welcomed to the fold.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm aware of it, which is why I would not want to do so. But paying 2K upfront for a service that I would use once a year gives me plenty of incentive to actually get my monies worth. I'm not a jerk, but I'm also not a sap.

And by the way, the true point of supercharging is to break down a major barrier to EV adoption. Making the network financially impracticable for a significant portion of people is counterproductive to the whole process.

Then buy a Volt.

200+ miles and you can abuse and pay for someone else's charging solution.

It's still a $35000 car. The entire concept is still unaffordable for an even more significant portion of the populace.

If you are too cheap to charge at home, maybe you should step back from this price range of vehicle.