Why do you think this? I think this would more likely drop as people who are less well off can't afford to travel as much. On the whole I expect that Model 3 owners are just as likely as Model S owners to value their time at more than the amount they save by Supercharging instead of plugging in at home.
-
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
Why do you think this? I think this would more likely drop as people who are less well off can't afford to travel as much. On the whole I expect that Model 3 owners are just as likely as Model S owners to value their time at more than the amount they save by Supercharging instead of plugging in at home.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Blink just bailed out of the Nissan free “No Charge To Charge” program. Not a good trend ...
Blink Ends Its Participation In Free Level 2 Charging For Nissan's No-Charge-To-Charge Program
Rather abruptly and without providing any actual reason (other than perhaps its own pending insolvency), Blink has decided to remove all of its Level 2 chargers from the Nissan LEAF’s free “No Charge To Charge” program.
Effective April 23rd, none of Blink’s Level 2 chargers will be free for “No Charge to Charge” participants. Rightly so, this move has lots of LEAF owners riled up because Blink was a major player in the “No Charge to Charge” program. See here for Blink service areas.
Blink is apparently still allowing free access to its fast chargers on the program, but Level 2 access will now come with a fee. Please direct all inquiries to Blink (owned by CarCharging Group) or to EZ-Charge.
Blink Ends Its Participation In Free Level 2 Charging For Nissan's No-Charge-To-Charge Program
Rather abruptly and without providing any actual reason (other than perhaps its own pending insolvency), Blink has decided to remove all of its Level 2 chargers from the Nissan LEAF’s free “No Charge To Charge” program.
Effective April 23rd, none of Blink’s Level 2 chargers will be free for “No Charge to Charge” participants. Rightly so, this move has lots of LEAF owners riled up because Blink was a major player in the “No Charge to Charge” program. See here for Blink service areas.
Blink is apparently still allowing free access to its fast chargers on the program, but Level 2 access will now come with a fee. Please direct all inquiries to Blink (owned by CarCharging Group) or to EZ-Charge.
Last edited:
CuriousG
Active Member
There are Superchargers being abused by Model S owners now so it isn't a stretch to say and generalize for potential Model 3 owners. This is not to lump everyone into the same category but to show the problem is there. Because you don't see it happening in your neck of the woods doesn't mean it won't happen. In your case, being 90 miles out you wouldn't even use it unless you're going that direction.
What originally was thought to be a $35k car may suddenly be $37k+ with Supercharging and that's not including a NEMA 14-50 they never considered getting put in which may run $300 - $2000 to install. Never underestimate the power of free.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
If they have garage parking, of course. If they have street parking or driveway parking, or apartment/condo parking with a garage that won't easily support new 220v power (for logistical reasons, or e.g. because management is being difficult) it's a lot more problematic. This is not about insulting Model 3 owners. It's simply the observation that halving the price point opens up the market to a flood of new customers who might not be as conveniently set up for EV home charging as the typical well-off Model S/X buyer.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Come on... you've done supercharge road trips... you know as well as I do that most charging sessions are a lot longer than 20 minutes just to make the next charger... there's no where near as much slop in the system as you're implying. If throughput was a concern Tesla would at least be educating people about 'Bay sharing' if they really wanted to move things along there would be a light showing you which bay should be used next to maximize efficiency.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
Tesla has stated they will double the size of the network in the next year or so. Some of this will be adding charging locations at more closely-spaced intervals. This will allow most charging stops to be 15-20 minutes or less in order to make the next charger, even for lower-capacity cars.
I've expected for a while that Tesla would add such a feature to the Nav, guiding you to the optimal charging slot as you pull up. Not sure why they haven't yet. In a congestion situation though, this would be irrelevant; you'd have to wait in line and pull into the first available stall.
Reading this thread, I think that the number one concern is future congestion. That is, people don't want to wait unnecessarily for an available stall. Avoiding that potential problem is the goal. Breaking it down, you either believe there's a risk that congestion is going to be an issue, or you don't. If you don't, then you disagree with any change, and may disagree that there should be a charge to "enable" Supercharging. If you do agree that current or future congestion is going to be a problem, then the breakdown looks something like this.
Usage fees (per minute, per kWh, etc) either:
Usage fees (per minute, per kWh, etc) either:
- provide a needed disincentive to unnecessary/misuse of Supercharging or;
- create unnecessary overhead for Tesla or are contrary to the mission of Tesla
- assists in building out the network or;
- encourages overuse or is incompatible with the Model 3
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That's another good 'Con'.... stop twice as often to save $$$... brilliant marketing move...
~150 miles is good spacing... I'm pretty sure that all things being equal most people would rather stop for 40 minuets every ~2 hours than 20 minutes every 70 minutes.
Things are getting incredibly complicated but at least there a small chance Tesla might be able to shave $1k off a $35k car.....
True. All of those are important factors...but the simplest solution is to fine people who leave their cars without charging: it fixes some issues completely and mitigates the rest. That incentivizes efficiency and forces people to remember: this isn't a parking spot.
About summoning: true, but then they would need all those fancy snake/robotic arms at every Supercharger station, which is a lot. Those things never left the prototype phase as far as I know.
1. Err, I'm talking about fees only if you hog the spot (not for use or access) after your car is fully charged. Like, leaving it plugged in after 100% charge. It's not a free parking spot. As soon as that mindset is created, boom: abuse and waits seem like just around the corner.
2. Even Tesla would agree: don't hog the spot so that other cars can't charge. It's not an issue now, but you realize, by leaving your car there, you're now disturbing other people's schedules and lives. Just plan your lunch for a few minutes earlier. That supercharger pitch works now, with ~100,000 Teslas on the road. I'm not sure it's feasible in the long-term. This pitch and "use the spot all you want" is because of the large # of Superchargers relative to cars. It's for long-distance charging, not long-distance parking. Sure, you're right: we could be more lenient. Maybe the first 15 minutes post-charge are free. But, at 15+ minutes, they start a fee.
3. For actual use, I don't foresee any major issues. I agree. Tesla will just build more Superchargers, more slots, implement faster charging, etc.
4. The valet system: true. If they can find good enough algorithms to predict peak hours on what days and inform their valets enough ahead of time, sure. Peak times shouldn't last more than 3-4 hours except maybe on holidays.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That mindset has been created.... really... really hasn't been that big of an issue. ICE abuse has been a far bigger problem than Tesla abuse.
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
150 miles is definitely too far apart. (It's fine for a 294-mile-range 90D, but not for a 215-mile-range Model 3.) Halfway through its lifetime, a typical Model 3 will have lost perhaps 8% of its battery capacity, bringing it down to ~198 miles rated range on a 100% charge. In real-world driving conditions people often get 20% below rated, so that works out to perhaps 158 miles of dependable real-world range on a 100% charge. Trickle-charging to 100% takes a full hour. Fast-charging to 50% takes 20 minutes. So with two 20-minute stops instead of an hour stop, not only do you save 20 minutes of your own time, you free up 20 minutes of charging time for other drivers. That would allow each station to handle up to 50% more cars per hour.
And this assumes that each driver charges only as much as they need to make the next station. With free unlimited, there's a definite tendency (if you're busy checking email or drinking coffee or whatever) to leave the car plugged in longer than you really need. If you're paying per minute, you'd (or at least I'd) be significantly less likely to do this.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It is suggestions like this that make people say the people suggesting pay-per-use are elitists or look down on Model 3 owners. If a pay per use model is to be adopted it must apply to all models in the lineup. Supercharger abuse is happening right now when there is not a single Model 3 on the road today. Any suggested solution that does not include Model S/X into it does not work to address the issue.
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
Am I crazy, or is this a solution looking for a problem? Howzat old yarn go - If it aint broke....
Ben W
Chess Grandmaster (Supervised)
??? This has nothing to do with blaming individual Model 3 owners. At the Tejon Range congestion debacle, were the Model S owners blaming each other? Not in the slightest. In these situations, the blame (if there is any) would be directed at Tesla for not managing their system effectively.
Obviously, pay-per-use cannot be retroactively applied to cars which were already bought with the promise of free supercharging for life. If you're saying that only future S/X's would have to be sold without unlimited supercharging, but existing ones would be grandfathered in, then that is a faint possibility, but I don't think expect Tesla to go there. Rather, they've been moving in the opposite direction, by bundling free supercharging into the base price of all S/X's rather than having it a separate 2k option. In the luxury segment, this is perfectly sustainable. It's not nearly as obvious that it is the best solution for the midrange segment. If it were, Elon would already have made the promise.
Last edited:
I'd expect more local superchargering simply because the Model 3 price point will enable more people in general to buy cars that can use superchargers. Which means more people near superchargers will be buying the cars and the temptation will be there to use them even when they don't have to. I have a Leaf and a local bank installed a couple of free chargers through charge point. I used to plug in there when I went to talk to my banker, but I can't anymore because the two spots are constantly taken up, and not by people inside the bank. And on Sundays, when the bank is closed, the spots are taken for the entire day. If chargers are close and free, people will absolutely try to exploit them no matter how inconvenient it is. Some people just dont think rationally about the worth of their time and will do insane things for "free" things. Not everyone, probably not even most, but a small minority can ruin the experience for everyone
For the majority of locations, this probably won't be too big an issue. But in key areas like California, it can and will spin out of control if Tesla isn't proactive. It's already happening on heavy travel days, and with ten times the number of cars on the road it will only get much, much worse. If people's experience with superchargers is long ass waits it will negatively affect people's perception of Tesla's as a car, and they won't care that superchargers in Wyoming are free 90 percent of the time if the chargers they actually use in California or along major travel routes are constantly clogged.
EcoHeliGuy
Member
Sorry but I do not agree at all with this statement.
Financial wealth, spending, and life style, arn't cut and dry as you suggest.
Image has nothing to do with financial wealth. Extremely rich people shop at Walmart and drive Camary's. Extremely indebted people drive Benz's and shop at coach. And vice versa. When a Model S can cost the same as a fully optioned pickup, you can't paint a picture.
He also hasn't promised that all Model S and Model X will have unlimited Supercharging. So why is pay per use for future Model S/X sales a "faint possibility" for Model S/X but clearly the way to go for future owners of Model 3?
As for not blaming fellow owners, there are literally hundreds of posts in these forums complaining about locals using superchargers, people leaving their Model S blocking a Supercharger after it is charged and otherwise not being considerate.
As for Superchargers that have congestion because many people who are travelling are using Superchargers "as intended" at the same time, pay per use will not help unless it discourages people from travelling in their Tesla. That would be a terrible outcome. Tesla has shown that they are willing, when needed to add Superchargers at a location that is subject to congestion. (Thank you Elon and team for the 12 brand spanking new Superchargers at the Newark, DE site.) Tesla also seems to be adding sites to relieve the stress on nearby sites. Maybe there could be a reservation system for half of the chargers at busy sites on busy days. Making everyone pay everyday to not fix congestion that happens at some sites on some days strikes me as incredibly short sighted.
There is no question that with more Teslas on the road, there will be more people who are inconsiderate. The question is why do you think a higher percentage of Model 3 owners will be inconsiderate that owners of Model S or Model X?
You kind of made my point. In the end I don't think there is any reason to believe Model 3 owners will be more inconsiderate that Model S or X owners. I think it is true that to some extent at least people with less money travel less than people with more money.
I don't think a higher percentage of model 3 owners will be more inconsiderate. Only that with more owners will come more people who think only of themselves. Musk wants to double the superchargers by the end if next year, which is great, but four times more people have reserved the Model 3 than Tesla has sold cars so far. If they don't fumble production, theyll be manufacturing at least double the number of cars they have on the road now total PER YEAR in a couple of years. That means way more cars on the road, which means the percentage of selfish could remain exactly the same while the actual number of selfish people increases by far more than Tesla is expanding the network.
Similar threads
