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.
Look. I see your point. I just rather thoroughly disagree with it. Besides, by my calculations, even if there were a fee, it probably wouldn't be more than $500 -- at this point, $2,000 would be
WAY too much. Here is how I described it elsewhere:
The $2,000 fee for Supercharging on the Model S
60 represented only 11.44% of the 25% profit
margin on that car. The traditional automobile
manufacturers admit to a 6% profit margin on their
cars. Since Tesla Motors will not have a network
of 'independent franchised dealerships' to siphon
off profitability, that makes for another 6%. So,
it is very likely the minimum profit margin on a
$35,000 Model ☰ will be 12%. That comes to $4,200
and 11.44% of that is $480.48 or less than $500.
Besides... What's the point of cutting the
Reservation deposit from a $5,000 minimum on Model S
and Model X to only $1,000 if you are only going cut
the Supercharger option from $2,000 to $1,000 on
higher volume? Sure, a $1,000 fee is simple,
straightforward, linear, understandable, and likely
'fair'... But a $500 fee, if tendered, would be
extremely affordable and accessible. And, swallowing
that amount and telling people to just buy a car,
then charge where ever they like, as often as they
like, but please don't be a [BUM] about it, is even
better.
The base price has been set, effectively at 'half' the
$69,900 price of the Model S 60 since 2013. The
people at Tesla Motors are very, very smart. They are
making every effort to ensure that the cost to build
the car does not exceed 94% of $35,000 to start -- or
$32,900 -- so that the car is at the very least,
profitable in some way from the very beginning. By the
way, car companies that fall below 5% profitability go
out of business. Lexus manages 14% across their whole
product line. Worst case, if the options that are
added above and beyond the base price cost 50% as much
as is charged for them, if someone adds as much as
$15,000 in options to the base car -- meaning a $50,000
MSRP car costs $40,400 to build -- the overall
profitability goes to 19.2% instead. Even a $2,000 fee
for Supercharger access would only move that to 22.3%
profitability on the top end. And if Supercharger
access were the sole $2,000 option chosen on a $35,000
car, that would take you from a 6% minimum to a 11.1%
margin. My, that number looks familiar... Oh! That's
because as I said before, not having a network of
'independent franchised dealerships' allows for an
additional 6% of profitability all by itself -- and
therefore, Supercharger access is already paid for!
