Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[HanSolo]

The advantage that Tesla has is they're solely electric vehicle, whereas other manufacturers still have ICE cars to maintain. I mean what other manufacturer is even solely committed to electrifying vehicles as Tesla? Nissan, GM? Faraday Future?

CAFE dictates that they better get in on the game. FCA is going to find themselves in a boatload of trouble for example. Having other ICE cars to maintain will prove to be a huge asset as that diversifies the revenue stream which can subsidize initially unprofitable ventures. Many ICE cars are insanely profitable. Having all sorts of platforms they can utilize will only decrease their costs due to economies of scale. The advantage with Tesla as you stated is that there is no compromise as every vehicle they sell was designed from the beginning to be EV only.

We will have to wait and see. I want Tesla to succeed, but the financial hurdles alone are mindboggling. Then you have the logistics related complications they are facing.

 

[Ben W]

I don't agree with this point. The sustainability of the Tesla model has nothing to do with the market segment. Let's say hypothetically it costs $x per vehicle for all costs considered. It doesn't matter what segment and how much volume, if Tesla finds a way to charge that $x per vehicle from customer (whether hidden in margins or as an explicit option), then their prepaid model can scale forever.

What causes a problem is increase in demand per vehicle such that $x allocated per vehicle can't cover it any longer. I've pointed out many times: even if the Tesla population stays exactly the same as it is now, if just 10% of the population decided to do all their local charging on superchargers, it doubles the demand. Tesla is certainly aware of this issue (which is why there was that letter to discourage local charging on superchargers).

There are at least two reasons, in my mind, why it has very much to do with the market segment.

The first is that the more price-conscious the consumer becomes, the more likely they are to arbitrage the "free electricity forever". A typical wealthy Model S owner won't find it worthwhile to spend half an hour sitting at a supercharger to save $15. But a typical $35k Model 3 owner might. And a $20k "Model 4" owner almost certainly would. So as the cars get less expensive, the local charging pressures will only increase.

The second is competition. If there are two ways to do something, and Tesla does it one way, eventually some other company will pop up and do it the other way. So what happens when you have the following options:

1. Tesla Model 3, $35k base, $2k for unlimited SC.
2. Faraday Model C, $35k base, $0.25/min metered SC.

All things being equal, I think a LOT of people would go for the second option, just to save the $2k upfront. If either option were equally feasible for Tesla to implement by themselves, they will probably gravitate towards the one that more of their customers would prefer in the general case.

Note that since $2k is a much smaller relative amount in the luxury segment, and free unlimited supercharging for life seems like a very luxurious option, the same comparison might come out differently for the Model S/X and hypothetical competitors.

 

[stopcrazypp]

There are at least two reasons, in my mind, why it has very much to do with the market segment.

The first is that the more price-conscious the consumer becomes, the more likely they are to arbitrage the "free electricity forever". A typical wealthy Model S owner won't find it worthwhile to spend half an hour sitting at a supercharger to save $15. But a typical $35k Model 3 owner might. And a $20k "Model 4" owner almost certainly would. So as the cars get less expensive, the local charging pressures will only increase.

I've seen this claimed, but so far no evidence this is necessarily the case. The fact that there are "wealthy" Model S owners doing just that, shows that there are no bounds for moochers.

I've seen many cases of this first hand, but "wealthy" people can be more stingy than your average person (and some of them got wealthy by being stingy and taking advantage of any thing they can get).
Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not

The second is competition. If there are two ways to do something, and Tesla does it one way, eventually some other company will pop up and do it the other way. So what happens when you have the following options:

1. Tesla Model 3, $35k base, $2k for unlimited SC.
2. Faraday Model C, $35k base, $0.25/min metered SC.

All things being equal, I think a LOT of people would go for the second option, just to save the $2k upfront. If either option were equally feasible for Tesla to implement by themselves, they will probably gravitate towards the one that more of their customers would prefer in the general case.

Note that since $2k is a much smaller relative amount in the luxury segment, and free unlimited supercharging for life seems like a very luxurious option, the same comparison might come out differently for the Model S/X and hypothetical competitors.

This has nothing to do with sustainability of the prepaid model. The existence of the competitors does not change the amount of money it costs per car to support it.

 

[Ben W]

I've seen this claimed, but so far no evidence this is necessarily the case. The fact that there are" "wealthy" Model S owners doing just that, shows that there are no bounds for moochers.

I've seen many cases of this first hand, but "wealthy" people can be more stingy than your average person (and some of them got wealthy by being stingy and taking advantage of any thing they can get).
Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not

Tesla obviously already has some data on this. With their cars currently ranging from ~$70k to ~$140k. It would be fascinating to know if they've found any such correlation between the lower and higher end. It's not obvious to what degree their findings could be extrapolated down to the ~$35k range or below, though. And there are obviously outliers; some wealthy people can be very eccentric!

This is nothing to do with sustainability of the prepaid model. The existence of the competitors does not change the amount of money it costs per car to support it.

Selling lemonade on the street corner for $1000/glass would also be perfectly "sustainable", by this logic. That doesn't make it a viable business model. No product strategy is sustainable if your competitors have a more compelling product and are eating your lunch. So the prepaid SC model is only "sustainable" to the degree Tesla can continue getting people to buy into it. If a more attractive pricing model comes along from a competitor, Tesla would have to adapt or else lose a ton of business. And they probably wouldn't wait for the competitor to come along; they would just do it. My point is, if Tesla does the math and concludes that $0.25/minute will be more attractive to more Model 3 buyers than $2k upfront, and that either is equally feasible from a financial standpoint, then they should and probably will do the former.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Selling lemonade on the street corner for $1000/glass would also be perfectly "sustainable", by this logic. That doesn't make it a viable business model. No product strategy is sustainable if your competitors have a more compelling product and are eating your lunch. So the prepaid SC model is only "sustainable" to the degree Tesla can continue getting people to buy into it. If a more attractive pricing model comes along from a competitor, Tesla would have to adapt or else lose a ton of business. And they probably wouldn't wait for the competitor to come along; they would just do it. My point is, if Tesla does the math and concludes that $0.25/minute will be more attractive to more Model 3 buyers than $2k upfront, and that either is equally feasible from a financial standpoint, then they should and probably will do the former.

This example doesn't work because the Model S is already operating perfectly fine with that $2k upfront (under current supercharger demand). While no one can even begin selling $1000/glass lemonade.

The existence of a hypothetical prepaid competitor for Model 3 and the $2k option being less attractive will only mean less people will buy the option. However, this does not change the metrics of paying for the option itself, so the option will remain sustainable forever (i.e. Tesla can continue to offer it forever).

What you are talking about is there being a potentially better option (which Tesla can offer in addition if it makes sense), not that the $2k option itself is unsustainable.

However, the demand problem I am talking about is something that can make the $2k option unsustainable (Tesla would have to raise the price). And in general, a pure pay-per-use model can't be sustained without substantially higher usage fees (that's why my suggestion is never for a pure pay-per-use model).

The Blink network for example charges the equivalent of $1.1/minute (member rate) when factoring in the electricity usage. (170 miles / 30 minute supercharge speed) / (33 kWh/100 miles 70D efficiency * $0.59/kWh Blink rate)) = $1.1/minute.

 

[Ben W]

This example doesn't work because the Model S is already operating perfectly fine with that $2k upfront (under current supercharger demand). While no one can even begin selling $1000/glass lemonade.

The existence of a hypothetical prepaid competitor for Model 3 and the $2k option being less attractive will only mean less people will buy the option. However, this does not change the metrics of paying for the option itself, so the option will remain sustainable forever (i.e. Tesla can continue to offer it forever).

What you are talking about is there being a potentially better option (which Tesla can offer in addition if it makes sense), not that the $2k option itself is unsustainable.

However, the demand problem I am talking about is something that can make the $2k option unsustainable (Tesla would have to raise the price). And in general, a pure pay-per-use model can't be sustained without substantially higher usage fees (that's why my suggestion is never for a pure pay-per-use model).

The Blink network for example charges the equivalent of $1.1/minute (member rate) when factoring in the electricity usage. (170 miles / 30 minute supercharge speed) / (33 kWh/100 miles 70D efficiency * $0.59/kWh Blink rate)) = $1.1/minute.

Ok, I agree with most of this. Yes, Tesla would have to raise the upfront unlimited price above $2k if the local supercharging demand problem gets worse, or if the SC usage increases too much in general. But if SC becomes metered, it should still remain much cheaper than the Blink rate. I would expect something more like $0.25/minute, which at the maximum 120kW rate is just $0.125 per kW. The point is not to generate a profit; it's much more to incentivize proper use and deter abuse. But even at $0.25/minute, I think it would pay for a good chunk of the SC maintenance/electricity costs. So I disagree that substantially higher usage fees would be required in order for the pay-per-use approach to be sustainable.

 

[BlairC]

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.

I'm one of those. I reserved mine late Fri 4/01, so probably in the low 200,000 range. Will I be upset if SC access is an additional option or per use fee? No. Will it affect my decision? Yes. I fully expect to either pay upfont as an option or per use (or have it included in larger battery option). If it is $2k, I will have to take a look at how often we'd use it. Right now we take around 6 weekend road trips a year for one sons lacrosse tournaments - from Raleigh to Charleston, VA Beach etc. Looks like we'll add a few for other sons regional tae kwon do tournaments. Would that be enough use of the SC system to justify the $2k? Not sure yet. If I do $2k for SC access, I would have $2k less to spend on other options. Do I go with TM3 or say (possibly used) Audi A4 or Q5? I have 2 years or more to decide while saving down payment $$.

Current thoughts on options are: bigger battery & AWD. Would enable AP with future bonus $$. Not sure I can afford much more.

 

[ohmman]

Selling lemonade on the street corner for $1000/glass would also be perfectly "sustainable", by this logic. That doesn't make it a viable business model.

I don't know, Whole Foods seems to have based their entire business model on this general concept.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

If there are lots of fueling stations (think gas stations on every corner) than I would not need to invest capital dollars to gain access. I can simply price shop for lowest cost of convenient refill. I can fill at home - or down at the corner store and weigh time/convenience/cost. That is the current gas thinking. I probably won't use SC very often, but HAVING them scattered along most highway paths makes my EV more functioning. My $x0,000 investment has more value the more places I can use it. The $-per-fill model falls apart when there are no places to fill.
Would I choose to pay $2000 upfront? I'd prefer to pay per use - maybe even buy a subscription for vacation season. But unless someone builds the system - these selfish options are not valid.

 

[diamond.g]

Is Blink the only third party that offers DC charging?
Maybe Tesla should spin off the SC network into its own subsidiary and charge a per session fee like Blink for everyone. Blink must be making money off of charging, otherwise why bother right?

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I need some help understanding Blink rates:

The Blink network for example charges the equivalent of $1.1/minute (member rate) when factoring in the electricity usage. (170 miles / 30 minute supercharge speed) / (33 kWh/100 miles 70D efficiency * $0.59/kWh Blink rate)) = $1.1/minute.

I think this means I should expect to spend 30 minutes to get a "fill" of 170 miles using a 50 amp circuit? Somebody---did I understand the Blink Network example right?
​

There are 4 blink stations within a mile of my home. I think I can pay $0.12/kWh at home vs $0.59/kWh Blink rate. I assume I charge at the same velocity. If I use their chargers, I don't have to spend $500-$1,000 building my own charger. If I use theirs, I have to wander around the shopping center for 30 minutes, (my time is worth q$/hr), perhaps I end up buying something at the merchants store that fronted the capital to build the Blink ( do I put $5.00 per bauble into the price of the fill?). And - what if it is not a nice clear day, but a stormy night? Do I want to dawdle 30 minutes, or is the convenience of being home valuable?

 

[diamond.g]

I need some help understanding Blink rates:

The Blink network for example charges the equivalent of $1.1/minute (member rate) when factoring in the electricity usage. (170 miles / 30 minute supercharge speed) / (33 kWh/100 miles 70D efficiency * $0.59/kWh Blink rate)) = $1.1/minute.

I think this means I should expect to spend 30 minutes to get a "fill" of 170 miles using a 50 amp circuit? Somebody---did I understand the Blink Network example right?
​

There are 4 blink stations within a mile of my home. I think I can pay $0.12/kWh at home vs $0.59/kWh Blink rate. I assume I charge at the same velocity. If I use their chargers, I don't have to spend $500-$1,000 building my own charger. If I use theirs, I have to wander around the shopping center for 30 minutes, (my time is worth q$/hr), perhaps I end up buying something at the merchants store that fronted the capital to build the Blink ( do I put $5.00 per bauble into the price of the fill?). And - what if it is not a nice clear day, but a stormy night? Do I want to dawdle 30 minutes, or is the convenience of being home valuable?

Where are you getting your Blink rates from? From what I can see L3 (DC) charging with Blink is a flat 7 or 10 fee depending on if you are a member. (Unless you are in California, Washington State, or Oregon)

 

[diamond.g]

Is Blink the only third party that offers DC charging?
Maybe Tesla should spin off the SC network into its own subsidiary and charge a per session fee like Blink for everyone. Blink must be making money off of charging, otherwise why bother right?

Ah, there is another NRG EVgo.

We have two products for DC fast charging: for frequent chargers, our On-The-Go plan lets consumers charge for only 10 cents per minute. At the rate that a DC fast charger delivers power, this price is comparable to what a driver would pay to charge at home. The $14.95 monthly fee covers infrastructure development and maintenance. For less frequent chargers, our Flex plan enables consumers to access DC fast charging for a $4.95 fixed session fee plus 20 cents per minute.

 

[ikjadoon]

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.

What? What's the point on this entire Model 3 forum, then? The speculation is infectious, haha.

LOL... I can see people running out of a restaurant half-way through their meal to move their car before Tesla starts fining them so there will be 5 empty stalls instead of 4... sounds like a great idea to maintain customer loyalty

I've left a meal to move my car when the SCs were busy but I didn't mind because I was being courteous... but to levy a fee when it doesn't matter would be absurd. That's what happens when you apply a blanket solution to a 5% problem.

If you sat your car at a gas station pump, pumping gas, while you ate a restaurant....everybody in the restaurant would nod in agreement as you scurry to move your car.

That fee is to create the mindset, just in case people start getting all confident that it doesn't matter if you leave it in an extra 20 minutes.

 

[Topher]

That fee is to create the mindset

Hopefully the courteous mindset will work.

Once you start talking about Tesla monitoring the Superchargers there are a lot of options before we need to start assessing fees. Are there actually cars waiting? Easy for Tesla to check. What are the various charge levels in the various cars at the charger? Are some people close to their destination? Are some people willing to move, given an incentive? If superchargers are on private property, Tesla could 'summon' them out of the charger to a parking spot.

Thank you kindly.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Where are you getting your Blink rates from? From what I can see L3 (DC) charging with Blink is a flat 7 or 10 fee depending on if you are a member. (Unless you are in California, Washington State, or Oregon)

I got the calculation from Post 545 above from "stopcrazypp".
I looked up Blink rates on their website, and can confirm $0.59/kWh - but stoppcrazy provided another piece that I did not have - "it takes 30 minutes to put 170 miles on board at 50 amps. (33 kWh/100 mi)". This is the piece I've not seen and take his word for it.

As to the $7 fee - it still does not put in the time factor. How long does my car have to be connected to "fill up". Perhaps some smart folks here can share their use history and clarify "fill times" at various stations.

 

[diamond.g]

I got the calculation from Post 545 above from "stopcrazypp".
I looked up Blink rates on their website, and can confirm $0.59/kWh - but stoppcrazy provided another piece that I did not have - "it takes 30 minutes to put 170 miles on board at 50 amps. (33 kWh/100 mi)". This is the piece I've not seen and take his word for it.

As to the $7 fee - it still does not put in the time factor. How long does my car have to be connected to "fill up". Perhaps some smart folks here can share their use history and clarify "fill times" at various stations.

Ah. Yeah I saw those rates, but they only matter in the 3 listed states. All other states are the flat fee. The charge from 80-100% will take the longest as taper is happening.

Of course a flat fee wouldn't discourage folks from leaving their vehicles plugged in while doing other stuff.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Ah. Yeah I saw those rates, but they only matter in the 3 listed states. All other states are the flat fee. The charge from 80-100% will take the longest as taper is happening.

Of course a flat fee wouldn't discourage folks from leaving their vehicles plugged in while doing other stuff.

By "rates" you could mean 'time' - the speed of electrical fill, or the cost of electric.
I deduce you have considerable insight and interest in charging stations.. "We have two products for DC fast charging:" Perhaps you could address the time a typical traveler would need to allocate to fill at a typical station. Perhaps compare it to the time to seek out a fast charger.
Without that time-function - I can't evaluate Blink or your systems.

 

[diamond.g]

By "rates" you could mean 'time' - the speed of electrical fill, or the cost of electric.
I deduce you have considerable insight and interest in charging stations.. "We have two products for DC fast charging:" Perhaps you could address the time a typical traveler would need to allocate to fill at a typical station. Perhaps compare it to the time to seek out a fast charger.
Without that time-function - I can't evaluate Blink or your systems.

From my understanding the DC charging is best to 80%. Where most systems will charge to that 80% in about a half hour. Past that point the last 20% can take another half hour. The best systems would charge you per kW instead of per minute as the consumed kW to recharge is pretty much a fixed figure versus the long amount of time it would take to make it to 100%. But again that won't discourage plug camping.

 

[Ben W]

I got the calculation from Post 545 above from "stopcrazypp".
I looked up Blink rates on their website, and can confirm $0.59/kWh - but stoppcrazy provided another piece that I did not have - "it takes 30 minutes to put 170 miles on board at 50 amps. (33 kWh/100 mi)". This is the piece I've not seen and take his word for it.

Two quick things. First of all, this 170mi/30min statistic is for the Tesla superchargers, not for Blink. Second, "50 amps" does not belong here. The Tesla superchargers put out roughly 330 amps (360v) at the 120kW charging rate.

Blink is indeed $0.59/kWh (where legally allowed - which excludes California and some other states), but this rate is far more expensive than a pay-per-use Tesla SC would have to be. At a hypothetical $0.25/min Supercharger, the cost for filling up halfway would average more like $0.13/kWh, or about $7.50 for 170 miles of range. Try getting that in an ICE! On the other hand, spending 20 minutes trickle-charging from 90% to 100% (adding that last 25 miles of range) would average about $0.60/kWh, closer to the Blink rate. This is how a per-minute structure disincentivizes topping up to 100% unless you really need it.