Maybe you didn't read my 1st post, but I want to pay for it. That is not in question. However, I want to pay as I go. I don't want to pay a large sum up front.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion
- Thread starter rnelsonee
- Start date
Maybe you didn't read my 1st post, but I want to pay for it. That is not in question. However, I want to pay as I go. I don't want to pay a large sum up front.
Please remember that on the Model S 60 it cost $1,400 to enable the fast charging DC hardware so you could use a CHAdeMO charger, and then an additional $600 for access to the Supercharger network. It didn't cost $2,000 for access to the Supercharger network. (Of course you need the DC fast charging hardware activated to use the Supercharger network.)
Hopefully Tesla will be able to reduced the cost of the DC fast charging hardware to ~$700, or less, and it will be included in the base $35k car. Then the Supercharger access should only cost ~$500. (Which is only $62.50/year over 8 years; which is likely the length of the battery warranty.) Which hopefully they can just bake in.
Also, remember the Roadster, Model S, and Model X buyers have funded everything to make the Model 3 possible. And there is no reason to think that will stop. Tesla will always make higher margin cars to support their mission of making BEVs possible for everyone. (Call them Robin Hood if you want, taking from the rich to help out the poor.)
What do you consider a large sum? Please remember that on the Model S 60 it cost $1,400 to enable the fast charging DC hardware so you could use a CHAdeMO charger, and then an additional $600 for access to the Supercharger network. It didn't cost $2,000 for access to the Supercharger network. (Of course you need the DC fast charging hardware activated to use the Supercharger network.)
Hopefully Tesla will be able to reduced the cost of the DC fast charging hardware to ~$700, or less, and it will be included in the base $35k car. Then the Supercharger access should only cost ~$500. (Which is only $62.50/year over 8 years; which is likely the length of the battery warranty.) Which hopefully they can just bake in.
Tesla doesn't want to build a billing system and deal with all of that crap; it just doesn't make sense. They like the KISS principle.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Upfront payment for supercharge isn't about what's 'fair' or 'desired' it's about efficacy... pay-as-you go will....not....work;
Here's why... in 2020 Tesla wants to ship 500k cars; The current cost to support <100k cars with a sufficient supercharging network is ~$150M. So 500k cars will need an expansion costing ~$750M. That expansion is needed in 2020/21... not 2022 or 2023. Tesla can't wait to raise $750M by charging people as they use the superchargers. By contrast diverting $2k from the sale of every car to fund the network will raise $1B in 2020. $2k upfront works... pay as you go does not. It's that simple.
Last edited:
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
I really don't think that pay-per use (as an alternative to $2k upfront) is penalizing anyone, other than the abusers you claim don't exist. I would wager that most price-conscious Model 3 buyers, given the choice, would actively prefer the former. Granted that it provides less upfront revenue for Tesla, but by keeping their costs lower in the long run, it actively HELPS the transition to sustainable transportation (by making each car more affordable and/or profitable), rather than hurting it.
FWIW, "Doubling the entire supercharger network" will be entirely inadequate for the size of the anticipated Model 3 fleet; it will barely accommodate the additional S/X's that will be on the road by then. The SC network will need to expand by 10x by the early 2020's to handle the expected number of Model 3's on the road. If Tesla can cut this demand in half, by shifting the economics to disincentivize local charging and encouraging responsible use, it's a huge win for everyone. I believe pay-per-minute would cut real-world use at least in half, without compromising the utility of the SC network; it's still a lot cheaper than gas for long-distance travel. The saved money (from not having to build out all those extra SC stations) is directly helpful to the cause, not hurtful.
Social pressures should be enough to fix most of the problems noted.
* I get back in my Tesla after leaving it on the charger for too long, and get a message "3 cars had to wait to charge because you left me charging for too long." Or perhaps give the names of the cars kept waiting.
* I notice a car in a stall but not charging, and have my car send its owner a message "Please move your car, it is preventing someone charging."
These things can all be done in real time as politely as possible. Well defined approved behavior, and social pressure are far more effective than nit-picky rules (that will get gamed) and punishments.
Thank you kindly.
* I get back in my Tesla after leaving it on the charger for too long, and get a message "3 cars had to wait to charge because you left me charging for too long." Or perhaps give the names of the cars kept waiting.
* I notice a car in a stall but not charging, and have my car send its owner a message "Please move your car, it is preventing someone charging."
These things can all be done in real time as politely as possible. Well defined approved behavior, and social pressure are far more effective than nit-picky rules (that will get gamed) and punishments.
Thank you kindly.
Why do you think paying for a charge has to be inconvenient?
It could easily be billed directly to your credit card automatically. It could be exactly as convent as it is now, just plug in and charge up. The only difference (besides a small charge on your credit card) is there would be more available stalls and the wait time would be less.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? It actually does... the network isn't of much use if there are always lines... the primary purpose of the network is to showcase the viability of using an EV for road trips.
Tesla has no desire for this to become more common...
??? It actually does... the network isn't of much use if there are always lines... the primary purpose of the network is to showcase the viability of using an EV for road trips.
Tesla has no desire for this to become more common...
You say it isn't much use if "there are always lines", and then provide a picture. Exactly how many times has this happened? (It certainly can't be always, or we would be seeing a lot more about it in the news.)
I'm not saying lines will never happen anywhere, but this was a special situation being a holiday and other routes being closed because of fires.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Correct... and if the network doesn't expand at the same pace that cars are added that will become a more and more common site... diverting $2k from every vehicle sale to expand the network is an easy, simple and straightforward way to avoid that.
Chuq
Active Member
Another thought. At this "busy" superchargers, where locals sit for ages, add extra stalls but NOT additional energy supply. Similar to how presently, A and B stalls share a connection, perhaps have A, B, C and D stalls sharing the same capacity. If a car is sitting there trickle charigng to 100%, or has already hit 100%, it doesn't limit the ability for vehicles in other stalls to be getting the full supply.
Since drivers at the moment need to pay attention to stall numbers (e.g. if 1A is in use, go to 2A, not 1B) s to ensure they get full charge, this shouldn't be that different. At least, TMC users appear to understand this, I'm not sure if this has to be explained to others at SCs or not.
Since drivers at the moment need to pay attention to stall numbers (e.g. if 1A is in use, go to 2A, not 1B) s to ensure they get full charge, this shouldn't be that different. At least, TMC users appear to understand this, I'm not sure if this has to be explained to others at SCs or not.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
Unfortunately, it's also a really EXPENSIVE way to avoid that. Margins in the auto industry are razor thin, and car companies bend over backwards to save a few bucks here and there on costs. $2000 is an enormous chunk to siphon away from each car's profits, and/or to inflate the sticker price by. There is no such thing as "Tesla covers the costs"; it is always the buyers in the end who are on the hook. If it costs Tesla $2k per car to build and maintain the whole SC architecture, that will really hurt them when most of the fleet is ~$42k vehicles. (Elon's estimate.) With a more balanced pricing scheme (per-minute, rather than all-you-can-eat), a lot of pressure will be taken off the SC system, so perhaps it would cost Tesla $1k per car (instead of $2k) to build out and maintain such a system. By the time Model 3 fully ramps up, that's half a billion dollars a year savings.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? How much do you expect a fee to decrease supercharger use? Any fee would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of expanding the infrastructure or the $2k funded up front as occurs now with the S/X. The SC network is a large part of the reason Tesla has more pre-orders in 1 week than the Bolt is likely to sell in 5 years.
I'm pretty sure that the vast... vast... VAST majority of people would be willing to pay $2k more for a Tesla and the SC network is a large part of that.
Without diverting ~$2k from every vehicle sale there will not be a supercharger network large enough to support new vehicles...
.... it's <6% of the cost of the base model....
Last edited:
I wish Tesla would just come out and say what they are going to do so we could put this to bed. Even if they were to only say one of two things will happen, and we will announce which one closer to release:
- Supercharging access for long distance travel will be included in the base $35k price.
- Supercharging access for long distance travel will be an option with a one time payment, cost TBD.
roblab
Active Member
To me, this discussion is somewhat pointless. Tesla, at this point, cannot keep up with orders. The usual economic method to deal with this problem is raise the price, or offer less. Everyone in the world follows the maxim, "charge what the market will bear", and I see people haranguing over wages, in the same market.
Everyone would like a fully equipped electric car for $5000 or less, of course, but that isn't going to happen.
If Tesla can keep its order book full by charging for extras, that's business. If some poor nerd can't afford to buy an EV with supercharging, that's life. If someone doesn't like Tesla because of their desire to make enough money to stay in business, that's too bad.
Everyone would like a fully equipped electric car for $5000 or less, of course, but that isn't going to happen.
If Tesla can keep its order book full by charging for extras, that's business. If some poor nerd can't afford to buy an EV with supercharging, that's life. If someone doesn't like Tesla because of their desire to make enough money to stay in business, that's too bad.
It's a touch more complicated than that, considering Tesla's mission isn't merely to maximize profits. If it were, then yes - charge the most you can get for the vehicle. However, there's another way to run a business, and Musk seems to favor it. That is to commit to a mission, be profitable enough to be viable, and allow that viability to support your path to fulfilling the mission. Tesla's mission is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transit.
I've said before that they could stay niche and continue to draw good margins. They'd have been profitable a long time ago if that were the goal. But it's not. So to that end, I think they fail if they do not offer some iteration of this vehicle that's not compelling, a clear ICE alternative, and affordable at the level they've been targeting.
The conversation is less about whether it should be free, and more about the viability of free Supercharging as a function of congestion. Taking a side in that conversation is fine, because I don't think there's a clear answer. But personally I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as pointless.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
At the risk of being pedantic... Supercharger access is never free... the question is wether future Tesla owners will be given the option to 'opt out' or not. When I bought my P85 'Supercharger access' wasn't listed on my invoice but ~$2k of the sale still went to support the network.
Even if you never use the SC network isn't $2k a small price for furthering the EV revolution?
Similar threads
