Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[nwdiver]

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.

??? no... peak is peak... peak time isn't going to broaden just because there are more cars... For Example; Harris Ranch might need 30 charging Bays for ~100 hours a year. The rest of the year 20 bays is more than enough but it still needs 30 to handle peak flow.

Something is being done... to address that throughput issue you bought up. Instead of charging a fee 365 day a year... Tesla is going to hire a Valet to assist with throughput for the few locations and the few times it's required. But; A valet can only do so much... even with a Valet locations like Harris Ranch are still going to require rapid expansion and that costs $$$.

If the fee doesn't alter travel as you've stated then it's certainly not going to reduce the number of required superchargers.

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.

+1
Tesla.... it's not just a car.... it's also a mission

 

[Ben W]

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.

You forgot the third option: If you absolutely need long-distance, but are put off by the overly expensive SC upfront fee, buy an ICE. This is why Tesla will do everything they can to avoid consumers making this third choice.

 

[FlatSix911]

Supercharging is going to be standard & free for life on the Model 3. No doubt in my mind at all. If not, they are going to have a lot of pissed off potential customers based on what Elon stated at the reveal and what the website says.

Dream on ... it's not going to happen. Just pay the man $2K and enjoy the ride.

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

Dream on ... it's not going to happen. Just pay the man $2K and enjoy the ride.

View attachment 172560

Except you found a non current image from Tesla.com

 

[nwdiver]

You forgot the third option: If you absolutely need long-distance, but are put off by the overly expensive SC upfront fee, buy an ICE. This is why Tesla will do everything they can to avoid consumers making this third choice.

"I was ok with paying $35k for a Tesla but $37k? Nooooo thank you." - Said no one ever

 

[BozieBeMe2]

If this bickering keeps up, Tesla might start designating a certain amount of SC stalls as for 'local use' and certain stalls for 'long distance use'. Our cars do have I.D.'s
If we want to keep playing the semantics of what we say are our rights, then you won't leave the Mother Ship much wiggle room.
We are adults and surely we can understand how it should and how it does work. If you can charge at home but don't, you are shorting your battery's life and possibly taking a stall sorely need for someone to make it home.
Not much different from finding a SC stall 'ICED' out.
Common sense should rule out!

 

[Ben W]

??? no... peak is peak... peak time isn't going to broaden just because there are more cars... For Example; Harris Ranch might need 30 charging Bays for ~100 hours a year. The rest of the year 20 bays is more than enough but it still needs 30 to handle peak flow.

Something is being done... to address that throughput issue you bought up. Instead of charging a fee 365 day a year... Tesla is going to hire a Valet to assist with throughput for the few locations and the few times it's required. But; A valet can only do so much... even with a Valet locations like Harris Ranch are still going to require rapid expansion and that costs $$$.

If the fee doesn't alter travel as you've stated then it's certainly not going to reduce the number of required superchargers.

Sigh. For a given size network, "Peak time" DOES broaden as the fleet size increases. There will be many more hours per year when a given SC is full to capacity. Right now, with 100k cars on the road, Harris Ranch might be totally full 100 hours per year, and half-full 1000 hours per year. With 200k cars on the road, with the same number of chargers, they would therefore be completely full ("Peak Time") 1000 hours per year, and absurdly overcongested 100 hours per year. You can either double the number of chargers, or double the efficiency/throughput, or some combination. Valets might very well help with the latter.

A per-minute fee would be just as effective as a valet, if not much more so. It won't "alter travel" in terms of the number of miles driven on roadtrips, but if more efficient charging (e.g. stopping at 60%) were incentivized, the throughput could double. I'm not sure a valet will be asking every driver if it's ok to stop at 60%, or risk upsetting drivers by doing it anyway. (Especially if the driver then drives like a maniac and runs out of juice on the way to the next SC, and blames the Tesla valet. *Cough* Broder *Cough*.)

 

[S'toon]

Why don't we all stop arguing until Tesla decides what to do? We're all just going around in circles without knowing what Tesla is even thinking of at the moment.

 

[Ben W]

"I was ok with paying $35k for a Tesla but $37k? Nooooo thank you." - Said no one ever

Holy crikey are you wrong about this. There will be a vast number of people who start off on the fence between a Tesla and an ICE, and $2k is way more than enough to tip the balance. Very few people are as price-insensitive and purely ideologically driven as we (posting in a Tesla fan forum on a weeekend) are.

 

[Canuck]

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.

You need to say buy a new Tesla since it's not really that simple if you happen to buy a used 60 kWh that doesn't have supercharging enabled. And we still don't know if the Model 3, which will be supercharger "capable", will be supercharger "enabled" without payment of a fee. Then again, you can't purchase a Model 3, you can only reserve one.

 

[FlatSix911]

Exactly!

"I was ok with paying $35k for a Tesla but $37k? Nooooo thank you." - Said no one ever

Holy crikey are you wrong about this. There will be a vast number of people who start off on the fence between a Tesla and an ICE, and $2k is way more than enough to tip the balance. Very few people are as purely ideologically driven as we (posting in a Tesla fan forum on a weeekend) are.

Why would Tesla charge current Model S 60kWh owners $2.5K and not charge Model 3 owners? Free is not going to happen.

 

[nwdiver]

Holy crikey are you wrong about this. There will be a vast number of people who start off on the fence between a Tesla and an ICE, and $2k is way more than enough to tip the balance. Very few people are as purely ideologically driven as we (posting in a Tesla fan forum on a weeekend) are.

~400k people have already deposited half of that $2k... and the car is still >2 year out. Tesla will probably be supply constrained for the next 10 years... after which the network will be mature... then sure...a per use fee might make sense

 

[Canuck]

I do think more than a few will balk at paying an extra $2,500 for supercharging, or even a pay per use fee, and for this reason it strikes me as odd that if Tesla plans to include free supercharging with every Model 3 that they wouldn't just say it. The fact that they don't, or won't, tells me that there will be some sort of fee. But only time will tell.

 

[Red Sage]

Red Sage, please tone down your language. Changing the letters doesn't help, especially since you use all CAPS to swear. This is a family friendly forum and let's please keep it that way.

Wait... Hunh? What?!?

C'mon, MAN! I can't possibly be the only person here who is a fan of 'Johnny Dangerously' (1984)... Am I? Really?

A guy can't quote the Infamous Roman Moronie...? He was a family man! Sure, it was a Crime Family, but...

 

[Ben W]

~400k people have already deposited half of that $2k... and the car is still >2 year out. Tesla will probably be supply constrained for the next 10 years... after which the network will be mature... then sure...a per use fee might make sense

Apples and oranges. A fully refundable $1k deposit doesn't "cost" any more than putting it under your mattress or into a savings account*; you haven't actually spent it yet, and can get it back whenever you want.

The more efficiently Tesla is able to handle SC demand, the more profitable they will be, thus the sooner they will be able to outgrow their supply constraints. So they will tackle this issue immediately, not wait 10 years.

*Chase savings accounts currently offer 0.01% interest. So technically the deposit is costing you roughly a pack of bubblegum per year.

 

[Ben W]

I do think more than a few will balk at paying an extra $2,500 for supercharging, or even a pay per use fee, and for this reason it strikes me as odd that if Tesla plans to include free supercharging with every Model 3 that they wouldn't just say it. The fact that they don't, or won't, tells me that there will be some sort of fee. But only time will tell.

+1. Everyone wants free everything, naturally. But I can't imagine that a pay per use fee (still cheaper than gas) would actually be perceived as a disincentive by real buyers, especially if it keeps down the upfront price of the car. And as you say, if Tesla were planning to offer "free" supercharging with the Model 3, they would have already said it, and not kept hedging around it.

 

[Red Sage]

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.

Isn't it amazing how many people are arguing against the notion of simply keeping it simple?

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

Holy crikey are you wrong about this. There will be a vast number of people who start off on the fence between a Tesla and an ICE, and $2k is way more than enough to tip the balance. Very few people are as price-insensitive and purely ideologically driven as we (posting in a Tesla fan forum on a weeekend) are.

Those people are more likely going to go with the $33k option then

 

[Ben W]

Isn't it amazing how many people are arguing against the notion of simply keeping it simple?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -H.L. Mencken

 

[Red Sage]

Why don't we all stop arguing until Tesla decides what to do? We're all just going around in circles without knowing what Tesla is even thinking of at the moment.

Well, though I will likely bow out soon...? I was really just reserving my right to say, "I told you so!" to all the folks that desperately believe Tesla Motors must become 'The NeXT EXXON!!!' to survive. I submit there is no need for the Supercharger network to be a profit center. They already generate profit, by getting more people to buy the cars.

Elon Musk already said that if other automobile companies want to participate in the Supercharger network, he has two conditions: 1) That the cars be able to accept the full power of a Supercharger without throttling down; and 2) That the owners of the cars not be billed or charged any fees beyond the initial cost of the car. From my point of view, if that is the case for third party vehicles, it isn't likely to be any different for Tesla Motors vehicles.