Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[Canuck]

Yet again... The problem was that people were spending inordinate amounts of time in parking stalls at busy Supercharger locations -- WITHOUT CHARGING. They might have been hooked up, but their cars were FULL. They had NO NEED of the Supercharger whatsoever. They were being [edit] and blocking the spaces from others who needed a legitimate charge.

Do you just make stuff up? Here's what Elon Musk said about the letter - he never once even mentions your point:

"Superchargers, the free ultrafast Tesla-only DC chargers spaced along Interstate highways, weren’t meant to be used for local driving by lucky owners who happen to live near one, said Musk.
“There are a few people who are quite aggressively using it for local Supercharging,” he said last month.
“We’ll sort of send them just a reminder note that it’s cool to do it occasionally, but that it’s meant to be a long-distance thing”

And here's the letter - note that it says: "As a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask that you decrease your local Supercharging..." This is said before the mention of "and promptly move your Model S once charging is complete." Moving vehicles once charged is clearly not the main problem the letter was sent to address. It was locals over-using Superchargers. The letter even tells them "how little it costs to fill up at home"...

Tesla Letter To Rein In Local Supercharger Use Goes Wrong

 

[Topher]

Moving vehicles once charged is clearly not the main problem the letter was sent to address.

Not clear at all. It is just the most reasonable way to phrase the sentence.

The letter even tells them "how little it costs to fill up at home"...

The letter even says "The true convenience of EV ownership is unlocked when owners enjoy the ease of charging at home each night..." Which, by the way, it says before the cost bit.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Canuck]

Not clear at all.

"Superchargers... weren’t meant to be used for local driving by lucky owners who happen to live near one, said Musk
“We’ll sort of send them just a reminder note that it’s cool to do it occasionally, but that it’s meant to be a long-distance thing”

"As a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask that you decrease your local Supercharging..."

Yeah, it's not clear at all. I think it means locals can use them all they want, as long as they move their vehicle when done....

 

[Topher]

Yeah, it's not clear at all. I think it means locals can use them all they want, as long as they move their vehicle when done....

We can all read the full letter. There is no need to make up strawmen about anyone's position here. I read two issues in that letter, you seem to think only one of them is important. That is your bias.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Canuck]

There is no need to make up strawmen about anyone's position here.

Please show me the strawman? All I did was quote what you said:

Not clear at all.

Quoting you is not setting up a strawman. These are your own words. You can explain what you meant, but you can't say I am not being fair in quoting you. You said it's not clear. I say it's abundantly clear.

Really, it all comes down to what I said in my prior post about human nature. Both you and Red Sage just refuse to acknowledge that locals are not to use superchargers ("it’s cool to do it occasionally" though) even if you move your vehicles right after you charge locally. If this is any indication of the intent of some future Model 3 owners, who refuse to even acknowledge the purpose of SC being long distant travel, but prefer instead to serve their own self-interest (and then claim they are "sharing" people - not you - Red Sage) then we are in for trouble when the Model 3 comes out if it does have Supercharging included.

 

[Ben W]

According to Tesla Model 3 Reservation Holder Survey Tells An Exciting Tale, in a talk by a Tesla VP a few days ago he said that the “free forever charging model is sustainable."

That's a pretty selective interpretation. Here is what was actually said:

Q: Tesla understood very well that the success of the electric car lies in building the charging infrastructure. How can your supercharger network be a sustainable business model for the long run?

A: As someone once said, in the long run we’re all dead. [laughter]

The supercharging network was set up to address a very practical consideration, which is how do we make the Model S a complete solution, a complete replacement for the other vehicles in the segment: the Mercedes S-Class, the Audi A-8, for which there is already an installed base of gasoline and petrol filling stations. It started with that proposition, and at the scale we introduced it, the scale we’re operating right now, the free-for-forever proposition is sustainable.

We’re pragmatic and as we look to the future, I could imagine our charging network and other charging networks evolving in a number of different ways. The other reason why we put the supercharging network out there is that no one else was doing anything like that, especially in the US, maybe less in the Netherlands where you had some early investments in charging infrastructure, no one was doing anything that made sense. There were a lot of government investments for charging stations that went in front of town halls because that was convenient and graphic for a ribbon cutting ceremony but it had nothing to do with how people would actually want to use a charger, and it had nothing to do with the kind of charging people wanted, which is point-to-point, long-distance charging and quick charging. So we’ll see what the future holds, but for right now we’re holding to our model.

To me, this is actually a fairly strong indication that the Model 3 will NOT be free unlimited, but rather will switch to a pay-per-use or pay-per-minute model.

 

[Topher]

Please show me the strawman? All I did was quote what you said

THIS:

I think it means locals can use them all they want, as long as they move their vehicle when done....

Thank you kindly.

 

[Canuck]

THIS:

Yeah, it's not clear at all. I think it means locals can use them all they want, as long as they move their vehicle when done....

That's the strawman? That's the point of our entire discussion. Red Sage said:

Yet again...The problem was that people were spending inordinate amounts of time in parking stalls at busy Supercharger locations -- WITHOUT CHARGING.

I said:

Moving vehicles once charged is clearly not the main problem the letter was sent to address.

And you replied:

Not clear at all.

So, if I put words in your mouth, and you are not, in fact, supporting what Red Sage said was the problem Tesla was addressing in their letter, then what is the problem they were addressing? And why is it unclear? People really need to understand: Superchargers are for long distant travel only (except for the occasional local charge). The whole system will fall apart if they are used constantly by locals. This is very clear. There's absolutely no ambiguity at all.

 

[nwdiver]

To me, this is actually a fairly strong indication that the Model 3 will NOT be free unlimited, but rather will switch to a pay-per-use or pay-per-minute model.

Diverting ~$2k per vehicle is sustainable for the X/S... do you really think M3 drivers would take so many more road trips that the system would break down?

Let's flip this... it's pretty obvious that charging per use can't raise enough capital to expand the supercharger network as quickly as will be needed to support the flood of Model 3 cars. The only viable solution is to pay on day 1 to expand the network.

So... ~$2k of the purchase price of your car has been invested in the supercharger network... anyone think it would be fair to now charge you a per use fee to discourage you from using the charging network you just helped to build? If use is limited to travel only then congestion shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Ben W]

Diverting ~$2k per vehicle is sustainable for the X/S... do you really think M3 drivers would take so many more road trips that the system would break down?

Let's flip this... it's pretty obvious that charging per use can't raise enough capital to expand the supercharger network as quickly as will be needed to support the flood of Model 3 cars. The only viable solution is to pay on day 1 to expand the network.

So... ~$2k of the purchase price of your car has been invested in the supercharger network... anyone think it would be fair to now charge you a per use fee to discourage you from using the charging network you just helped to build? If use is limited to travel only then congestion shouldn't be an issue.

Diverting ~$2k per vehicle will not be sustainable for the Model 3, because the profit margins are so much slimmer. M3 drivers will not take more "road trips", but they would do a LOT more local charging under the unlimited structure, so the ultimate cost to Tesla per car would be significantly higher per Model 3 than per Model S/X. Diverting $3k or $4k per Model 3 would be even less sustainable, so something else needs to change.

The primary advantage of pay-per-use is not the incremental revenue at all, but rather the decreased rate at which Tesla will need to build out the system to accommodate the fleet, because there will be a lot less local charging and abuse. Upfront funding for the smaller build-out could still be covered by S/X sales (and perhaps high-end 3's), and the incremental revenue should be enough to sustain the system over time. A hybrid approach of (say) $500 to enable access plus $0.20/minute might also be workable, and affordable to the Model 3 demographic.

 

[nwdiver]

Diverting ~$2k per vehicle will not be sustainable for the Model 3, because the profit margins are so much slimmer.

???? The Bolt is $37k... the M3 is $35k... if you don't want to support the SC network with a M3 then buy a Bolt.... oh wait

$2k is ~5% the cost of the car... if you want a Tesla then support the mission... it's a package. I seriously doubt that's going to be make or break... especially with ~400k pre-orders.

The primary advantage of pay-per-use is not the incremental revenue at all, but rather the decreased rate at which Tesla will need to build out the system,

There is absolutely no evidence that a pay per use fee would have a discernible effect on travel... do you really think that anyone is going to buy a $35k car then not take a trip because of a $10 fee? Really? Any fee large enough do discourage network use is going to make a road trip in a Tesla more expensive than an ICE... which kinda defeats the purpose.


Here is how much cost of travel effects the amount of travel....

It's very unlikely that a fee on superchargers would decreased the required number of superchargers.... unless that fee is so punitive it makes a trip in a Tesla more expensive than a trip in an ICE... in which case... what's the point....

 

[Ben W]

$2k is ~5% the cost of the car... if you want a Tesla then support the mission... it's a package. I seriously doubt that's going to be make or break... especially with ~400k pre-orders.

There is absolutely no evidence that a pay per use fee would have a discernible effect on travel... do you really think that anyone is going to buy a $35k car then not take a trip because of a $10 fee? Really? Any fee large enough do discourage network use is going to make a road trip in a Tesla more expensive than an ICE... which kinda defeats the purpose.

It's very unlikely that a fee on superchargers would decreased the required number of superchargers.... unless that fee is so punitive it makes a trip in a Tesla more expensive than a trip in an ICE... in which case... what's the point....

$2k may seem like rounding error in the luxury segment, but not in the midrange segment. 5% of the cost of the Model 3 may be close to 50% of the profit margin. No car company could afford that hit to profit without making it up somehow. If an upfront SC option were offered a la carte, some M3 buyers might stretch for the $2k option at the expense of other high-profit options, but others may decide it's over their budget and buy an ICE instead. (For long-range travel, the choices are either Tesla + SC or an ICE.) The early adopters (even 400k of them) are not necessarily representative of run-of-the-mill buyers after production ramps up. And of course, the conversion ratio of refundable-deposit-holders to actual purchases remains to be seen.

As I said (but you seem to have ignored), I don't expect the fee to affect "road trips" or total miles driven in the slightest. That is not the point at all. Rather, it's all about local charging and inefficient use; e.g., trickle-charging, or staying plugged in after charging. The same number of miles will be driven regardless, but many more of them will be charged at home or at off-peak times or in the bottom half of the pack if there is a pay-per-minute fee. This will substantially reduce the SC build-out required to accommodate the fleet, particularly in populated areas. Even in low-population but high-traffic corridors like I-5, if you incentivize drivers to charge up to 60-70% and then unplug and hop to the next charger, rather than having dinner while slowly trickle-charging to 100% and leaving the car plugged in afterward, Tesla will be able to accommodate a LOT more cars with the same number of chargers.

 

[nwdiver]

As I said (but you seem to have ignored), I don't expect the fee to affect "road trips" in the slightest.

????? So...... how is a per use fee going to decrease the required size of the network? 95% of use is travel. There are better ways to discourage local use than a fee on the entire network.

I seriously.... seriously doubt that $2k is going to discourage many people from buying a Model 3.... a per use fee isn't going to reduce the required size of the network and the only way to raise enough money fast enough to expand the network is by vehicle sales....

I've supercharged ~100 times and I rarely if ever see a Tesla sitting on a Supercharger. Tesla also doesn't hesitate to contact the offender. On multiple occasions at busy locations like Barstow irritated Tesla drivers will call Tesla with the VIN of the offender and Tesla will call them to move their vehicle. ICING is a far bigger problem.

 

[Ben W]

????? So...... how is a per use fee going to decrease the required size of the network? 95% of use is travel. There are better ways to discourage local use than a fee on the entire network.

I seriously.... seriously doubt that $2k is going to discourage many people from buying a Model 3....

Please, please read the rest of my post where I explain the logic in detail. Even for the "95%" that is travel, a per-minute fee would improve throughput dramatically by encouraging much more efficient use. (E.g. charging to 60% and then hopping to the next charger, rather than trickle-charging to 100% and staying plugged in.) If there are any specific elements or arguments you disagree with, please tell me what they are.

To most people considering a Model 3, if money were no object, they would have already bought a Model S, right? Tesla makes a great deal of their profit on add-on options; do you really think a spoiler costs them $1000? A price-conscious buyer might stretch to buy the $2k SC option by NOT buying the premium audio, which would deprive Tesla of all the profit they would have made off the audio had they been able to offer SC cheaper (or as a pay-go option). It's in Tesla's interest to keep their per-car cost of the SC network as low as they can, to maximize their profit and/or make the car as affordable as possible.

 

[ikjadoon]

What about congestion pricing? Before you "dislike me into oblivion", hear me out.

Free when they're wide open, even if you're a local. Even if you're parking overnight, and nobody shows up. However, once the chargers have filled, any cars done charging will send an alert to the owners' phones and give them 10 minutes. Then billing begins. That's it, for starters. If that doesn't relieve blockage, they can dial it back and start billing at anything over 90% charge.

Issues with the proposal - Tesla needs to know when they have Supercharger issues. Bean counting is required. @Red Sage gets furious about my recommendation. But there is some upside to it. It still upholds the promise of free long distance travel, and it keeps people from blocking valuable parking spots.

This is quite reasonable. It's more lenient than my suggestion of $5 for the first 5 minutes, $10 for the next 5, and $20 for the next 5. By 15 minutes, you're already in the hole $35. In my view, you should be at your car 5 minutes before it is done charging. If you can't be, then don't abandon your car.

Because, at current speeds, 15 minutes will give a 30% charge for a low-charged car.

Even people with ICE cars manage their pump time: if you need to fill 15 gallons, sure, throw caution to the wind and buy a Snickers bar inside and come back.

"Superchargers, the free ultrafast Tesla-only DC chargers spaced along Interstate highways, weren’t meant to be used for local driving by lucky owners who happen to live near one, said Musk.
“There are a few people who are quite aggressively using it for local Supercharging,” he said last month.
“We’ll sort of send them just a reminder note that it’s cool to do it occasionally, but that it’s meant to be a long-distance thing”

And here's the letter - note that it says: "As a frequent user of local Superchargers, we ask that you decrease your local Supercharging..." This is said before the mention of "and promptly move your Model S once charging is complete." Moving vehicles once charged is clearly not the main problem the letter was sent to address. It was locals over-using Superchargers. The letter even tells them "how little it costs to fill up at home"...

We've talked about this maybe a dozen times now: the reasonable solutions are either to ban these aggressive users or we all start reserving slots at Superchargers via our GPS navigation systems. Every other method has too many false positives and absolutely disastrous PR implications (not charging implications...PR implications).

 

[nwdiver]

If there are any specific elements or arguments you disagree with, please tell me what they are.

At best a usage fee would decrease the required size of the network by ~10%.... if that... more likely it would have no effect... you would still need to divert ~$2k/car to expand the network quickly enough to support new cars. As you've stated... a usage fee isn't going to have much of an effect on intended use. My observations from superchargers is that throughput is already highly efficient. A supercharger is like a gas station... very few people linger longer than they need to.

If you incentivize drivers to charge up to 60-70% and then unplug and hop to the next charger, rather than having dinner while slowly trickle-charging to 100% and leaving the car plugged in afterward, Tesla will be able to accommodate a LOT more cars with the same number of chargers.

I understand what you're saying... you're simply wrong in the implications... the network has to be sized to accommodate peak traffic... 95% of the time that increased efficiency is irrelevant. For the remaining 5% there's only a few locations that are effected and Tesla is using Valets to move cars through faster. Again... a per use fee doesn't eliminate or reduce the need to tack ~$2k onto the cost of the car to support SC expansion...

A usage fee might make sense when the network is mature... but not when it needs to double every ~2 years.

IMO by far the most simplistic solution to stopping local 'abuse' is to simply block cars from using SC within a certain number of miles of where the car sleeps. If you need a boost to get home call Tesla roadside assistance to activate that SC. That would likely be enough of a hassle to prevent abuse but not so punitive as to cause a revolt.

 

[dhanson865]

Diverting ~$2k per vehicle will not be sustainable for the Model 3, because the profit margins are so much slimmer.

I keep seeing people say this. Apparently people that don't pay attention to the quarterly earnings reports and conference calls. Elon Musk and JB Straubel have both stated several times that the profit margin for Model 3 will be lower but similar to the profit margin for Model S. Model S has floated between 25% and 30% and they adjust prices as needed to keep that up. They have said that Model 3 will be closer to 20% and hinted it might dip into the high teens but that isn't a drastic change between 20% and 25%.

Absolute dollar amounts are lower but "margin" is a percentage. If they charge $2000 per vehicle for supercharging on a cheaper vehicle by definition that will be a higher percentage. You can say that you don't think they'll charge $2000 per car because it's too high a percentage but you can't say they won't charge $2000 because it's to small an amount and you can't say it'll be a smaller margin if it is a fixed $2000 on a cheaper car.

It's so nonsensical a statement just parsing it goes in circles.

 

[Ben W]

At best a usage fee would decrease the required size of the network by ~10%.... if that... more likely it would have no effect... you would still need to divert ~$2k/car to expand the network quickly enough to support new cars. As you've stated... a usage fee isn't going to have much of an effect on intended use. My observations from superchargers is that throughput is already highly efficient. A supercharger is like a gas station... very few people linger longer than they need to.

I would expect that a per-minute fee would decrease the required size of the network by more like ~50%. If this turns out to be the case, the SC buildout would require a $1k/car diversion (or less, considering the additional per-minute revenue) instead of $2k/car, which would help a lot. No doubt Tesla has all sorts of mathematical models for this, and has a much more informed idea than we do of what to expect. But tiny changes in incentive structure can have an inordinate impact on behavior. Anectodally, I have a popular app for sale on the App Store; raising its price from free to $0.99 results in a whopping 100x fewer downloads. No one ever complains about the price per se; they just "use" (download) it dramatically less. I obviously wouldn't expect a 10,000% change in behavior for the SC network, but I _would_ expect the impact on overall efficiency/peak capacity to be a LOT more than 10%.

I understand what you're saying... you're simply wrong in the implications... the network has to be sized to accommodate peak traffic... 95% of the time that increased efficiency is irrelevant. For the remaining 5% there's only a few locations that are effected and Tesla is using Valets to move cars through faster. Again... a per use fee doesn't eliminate or reduce the need to tack ~$2k onto the cost of the car to support SC expansion....

As the fleet size increases, that 95% figure is going to become 80%, then 70%, and congestion will become a serious problem unless something is done. Even though 90% of the time the SC may not be full, it's that 10% that affects by far the most people. Valets is an interesting approach, to be sure. Eventually, autonomous plugging/reparking could partially take the place of valets, though it wouldn't address local charging. (And it's several years off at least.) Blocking local charging outright would much too heavy-handed I think, even if you could call Tesla to have it re-enabled. No matter what, having an incremental per-minute revenue stream would allow Tesla to decrease the upfront SC cost, which would increase their profit margins and/or make the car more upfront affordable to buyers. So I still fully expect that's the direction they will ultimately go.

 

[Ben W]

I keep seeing people say this. Apparently people that don't pay attention to the quarterly earnings reports and conference calls. Elon Musk and JB Straubel have both stated several times that the profit margin for Model 3 will be lower but similar to the profit margin for Model S. Model S has floated between 25% and 30% and they adjust prices as needed to keep that up. They have said that Model 3 will be closer to 20% and hinted it might dip into the high teens but that isn't a drastic change between 20% and 25%.

Absolute dollar amounts are lower but "margin" is a percentage. If they charge $2000 per vehicle for supercharging on a cheaper vehicle by definition that will be a higher percentage. You can say that you don't think they'll charge $2000 per car because it's too high a percentage but you can't say they won't charge $2000 because it's to small an amount and you can't say it'll be a smaller margin if it is a fixed $2000 on a cheaper car.

It's so nonsensical a statement just parsing it goes in circles.

Sure, pedantically I used the word "margin" wrong. The fundamental argument is still sound though: Tesla's profit per Model 3 is ~$8k (~20% of ~$40k), while their profit per Model S/X is ~$25k (~25% of ~$100k). So Tesla is currently diverting ~8% of their Model S/X profits toward the SC network, but they would have to divert a whopping 25% of their Model 3 profits towards the same. The former may be sustainable, while the latter is almost certainly not. So either they will have to make SC access a $2k a la carte option (which may drive a significant number of would-be buyers to ICE's, or at the very least cost them sales of other profit-heavy options), or else they will have to change their unlimited-access model. I know that if I were a price-conscious Model 3 buyer, I'd vastly prefer $0.25/minute supercharging over a $2k upfront fee.

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

You really have two choices:

1) If you don't like supporting the cost of the supercharger network, buy a bolt or leaf.

2). Support the cost of the supercharger by purchasing a Tesla.

It's that simple.