Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[Jersey Shore Tom]

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.

Tesla is selling more Model S and Model X everyday. How come Tesla doesn't need to take action to protect the Superchargers from the

Doubling the number of Superchargers will allow more than double the number of cars to use them. There are many Superchargers that are far from significant population centers that are unlikely to become overcrowded in the next ten years.

 

[mhan00]

They are. Or did you miss the hubub that happened when Elon started emphasizing that the superchargers are for long distance travel only? Or how quickly after the 3 reveal Tesla made sure to make it public that they only guaranteed the supercharging equipment was standard? It might be fine for now, but only an idiot wouldn't plan for the future, and Elon has shown he's no idiot.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

I don't buy this logic. If $2000 per car is sustainable for paying for the expansion/upkeep of the network for the usage of an average car, then the amount of cars on the road is irrelevant. What matters is the percentage of selfish owners in each population (as this increases the cost per car).

Also, the production rate of Model S/X isn't staying stagnant either. Elon has said he expects production to hit 100k per year by the end of this year. By 2020, probably S/X sales will be 200k per year total.

The need for network expansion will only end when the supercharger population reaches carrying capacity (meaning the cars being bought are only replacing retired cars, not adding to the population other than limited natural growth).

 

[Drivin]

I don't buy this logic. If $2000 per car is sustainable for paying for the expansion/upkeep of the network, then the amount of cars on the road is irrelevant. What matters is the percentage of selfish owners in each population.
).

No. It isn't about "selfish owners" it is about owners who don't have access to charging at home overnight. As tesla moves down from people who can afford a 100k car to people who buy a 30k car, they will reach people who live in cities, apartments, rentals without garages, etc and those people will need supercharging.

It is nonsense to assume that supercharging conjestion during busy travel weekends on busy corridors is because local people who could charge at home decided to drive to a supercharger on the busy weekend and wait to save a couple of dollars.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No. It isn't about "selfish owners" it is about owners who don't have access to charging at home overnight. As tesla moves down from people who can afford a 100k car to people who buy a 30k car, they will reach people who live in cities, apartments, rentals without garages, etc and those people will need supercharging.

It is nonsense to assume that supercharging conjestion during busy travel weekends on busy corridors is because local people who could charge at home decided to drive to a supercharger on the busy weekend and wait to save a couple of dollars.

Tesla's letter suggests that is exactly the problem right now. It is people who have the option of charging at home but decide to charge at a supercharger that is causing issues. The other issue is also those that are finished charging, but don't move their car.

They don't necessarily know when it is congested, because Tesla so far does not offer functionality to monitor the occupancy rate of a station. So the drivers just follow their normal routine and leave it plugged in. They aren't even phased by waiting for an hour (see example below).
[Rant] locals clogging the Highland Park, IL supercharger

 

[Drivin]

Tesla's letter suggests that is exactly the problem right now..

And you believe everything a company tells you about the problems with their products?

I wouldn't expect them to write "sorry the superchargers were really busy on busy weekends on busy corridors but until we are able to build enough superchargers to handle peak demand on peak days, get used to it"

Lot easier to blame it on some selfish people because if it wasn't for them the network could handle peak demand with problems. Lol!

Baghdad Bob would be proud.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And you believe everything a company tells you about the problems with their products?

I wouldn't expect them to write "sorry the superchargers were really busy on busy weekends on busy corridors but until we are able to build enough superchargers to handle peak demand on peak days, get used to it"

Lot easier to blame it on some selfish people because if it wasn't for them the network could handle peak demand with problems. Lol!

Baghdad Bob would be proud.

The other issue I forgot to mention, but is equally important for sustainability of a prepaid system, is that a daily user puts 10x the demand on the supercharger network than the average user (which use less than 10% of their total miles on superchargers). So even if they decide not to charge at the most congested times, such local users will put a disproportionate amount of demand on the network.

This is likely why Tesla felt the need to discourage local users from charging at superchargers regularly. Tesla wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't a real problem.

 

[Drivin]

The other issue I forgot to mention, but is equally important for sustainability of a prepaid system is that a daily user puts 10x the demand on the supercharger network than the average user (which use less than 10% of their total miles on superchargers). So even if they decide not to charge at the most congested times, such local users will put a disproportionate amount of demand on the network.

This is likely why Tesla felt the need to discourage local users from charging at superchargers regularly.

This ground has been covered before, but if they actually thought about what they were doing they would have made it clear from the beginning that local charging is not allowed rather than trying to send shaming letters to people who have every right to use superchargers when they want to. Besides, if a person doesn't do any long distance driving, how are they going to get the savings that tesla advertises on the pricing page (eg 10 percent supercharging)?

The selfish people are those that use supercharging for more than 10 percent of their total charging.


I dont understand your point about daily users putting 10x the demand. If they are driving 250 miles a day, isn't that the whole point of the network? To not have range anxiety?

 

[stopcrazypp]

This ground has been covered before, but if they actually thought about what they were doing they would have made it clear from the beginning that local charging is not allowed rather than trying to send shaming letters to people.


I dont understand your point about daily users putting 10x the demand. If they are driving 250 miles a day, isn't that the whole point of the network? To not have range anxiety?

By daily user, I mean a user that powers all their daily driving at superchargers, not necessarily that they do a supercharge every day. So such a user will have 100% of their miles on the supercharger network. An average user right now is still using under 10% of their miles on the supercharger network (although it has grown from 5%). 100%/10% = 10x the demand.

The statistics for travel in USA is that trips over 100 miles only makes up 15% of total miles. So under a scenario that superchargers are only used for long distance trips, then the percentage of supercharger miles should never climb over 15% (and probably a limit of 10% is more appropriate if talking about trips 200+ miles). I suspect Tesla designed their cost model under this assumption.

Once you add in the demand from shorter daily trips, that assumption goes out the window (which is why they needed to do that letter; they must be seeing that percentage climbing far faster than they predicted).

 

[Drivin]

By daily user, I mean a user that powers all their daily driving at superchargers, not necessarily that they do a supecharge every day. So such a user will have 100% of their miles on the supercharger network. An average user right now is still using under 10% of their miles on the supercharger network. 100%/10% = 10x the demand.

That doesn't work.
A local who travels 5k per year uses far less than a person who travels 6k a year in long distance.

The easiest thing is to just say that anything above 10 percent is above average and therefore selfish and surcharged.

 

[Red Sage]

Local charging is MUCH higher than 5%. (Where did you get this number?) I would guess it's closer to 30%.

Waitasec... Seriously? That's what you... guess? Really?

Wow.

OK... Let's look at the numbers... Through the end of 2015 Tesla Motors had sold about 58,000 of the Model S to US Customers.

5% of that total would be equivalent to 1/20th... or 5 out of every 100 Owners. Or, around 2,900 people who use Superchargers regularly, or exclusively, to fill their Model S. I would consider that to be an upper limit, myself. I believe the vast majority of those who can afford to foot the bill for a Model S will be charging their cars at home or at work.

You are saying you believe that local usage is actually SIX TIMES that rate, or 30%... which is 30 out of every 100 Owners. And with 58,000 Owners, you are honestly telling us with a straight face that you believe that TODAY there are something on the order of 17,400 Model S Owners who use LOCAL Superchargers either REGULARLY or EXCLUSIVELY in the United States of America? C'mon, MAN!

I'll tell you what I think. If usage of Superchargers by local Owners of Model S were in the range of 30% of the entire user base, Tesla Motors would not have sent a nice letter last August asking that people kindly leave Supercharger spaces when they are done, and please, pretty please, with sugar on top, try not to use Superchargers if you have the ability to charge at home...

They would have issued a wide mandate that come January 1, 2016 the Supercharger program would no longer be 'Free for LIFE!' and that cars purchased from that point forward it would only be 'Free for Five Years' instead. They would have announced they would reveal what fees going forward would be after that five year period was up at a later date. The Resale Value of cars that were Grandfathered into the old system would remain high, while the Residual Value of cars ordered on January 1, 2016 or later would drop.

Regular or exclusive usage of Superchargers by local Owners of Model S/Model X is almost certainly well below 5% of the current installed user base. Regular or exclusive usage of Superchargers by local Owners of Model ☰ will see a higher rate, but still not more than 10% of their installed user base. There will be extremes of usage, as well as extremes of non-use. Tesla Motors is well prepared either way and will continue to expand the Supercharger network to take care of all needs, current or future.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That doesn't work.
A local who travels 5k per year uses far less than a person who travels 6k a year in long distance.

The easiest thing is to just say that anything above 10 percent is above average and therefore selfish and surcharged.

That is true, but Tesla from the beginning has said they intended the network to power long distance trips. They never said they intended to cover local trips (with the exception of the city superchargers, which is another issue I have debated extensively before and feel should be made pay-per-use). And from the additional statistics I added to the post later, even though some users will drive more long distance miles and some less, the percentage will average out under 15% of total fleet miles.

If local use is added, it has no bounds (it can go all the way up to 100% of total fleet miles).

 

[Drivin]

That is true, but Tesla from the beginning has said they intended the network to power long distance trips.

1. That is not true. It was about eliminating range anxiety. I forgot to charge last night, or I don't have a garage, or...or... so unless I go to a supercharger I have range anxiety.

2. Even if it were, that was not a contractual agreement, nor has it been enforced.

That is why they have to resort to tell people it isn't cool. (Wow, who does that? Is this 1970?). Lol.

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

1. That is not true. It was about eliminating range anxiety. I forgot to charge last night, or I don't have a garage, or...or... so unless I go to a supercharger I have range anxiety.

2. Even if it were, that was not a contractual agreement, nor has it been enforced.

That is why they have to resort to tell people it isn't cool. (Wow, who does that? Is this 1970?). Lol.

Telsa expects people to follow their lead and do the right thing.

Hogging the local supercharger because you feel it's your right, isn't the right thing.

Charging at a Supercharger because you live in a strata or apartment and can't charge at home is the right thing.

 

[nwdiver]

1. That is not true. It was about eliminating range anxiety. I forgot to charge last night, or I don't have a garage, or...or... so unless I go to a supercharger I have range anxiety.

This is what Elon has said....

Charging at a Supercharger because you live in a strata or apartment and can't charge at home is the right thing.

Perhaps temporarily but you need to be pursuing a long-term L2 solution...

 

[Red Sage]

"These statements are not a reason for concern for Tesla drivers."

Though I personally agree... I really hate it when poll queries ask you to say 'YES' to agree to a negative. That was made illegal in California regarding State Proposals a few years ago. A lot of unscrupulous sorts kept wording their surveys, questionnaires, and public opinion polls so that selecting 'NO.' actually meant you were in favor of something. That really sucked until the practice was stopped.

"Shall we begin to stop allowing anyone to ask if they can't do something they haven't done yet but might if we don't?"

Wait... Hunh? What?!?

 

[TslaIsFuture]

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.

I own a Prius and paid $15.97 for 421miles (today)....So yea....ICE vehicles can do that.

 

[Drivin]

This is what Elon has said....

..

It doesn't matter what he says in 2015 about what he intended when he said Superchargers are free for life, without mentioning any restrictions, back in 2013.

He also intended for the X to be released 2 years ago, that doesn't matter.

So what that he thinks it isn't cool to do it more than occasionally (which is how often exactly - how do I know when I am being cool or not cool?)? And why does anyone care about how cool they are if they purchased Free Supercharging For Life? Did people pay less for the cool version than the non-cool version?

This is all amateur night based on bad planning or financials. As pointed out earlier, if they were serious, they would have announced any cars sold after a certain date had specific restrictions on Supercharging. Otherwise charge-shaming is an embarrassing effort - oh no, I am not cool! Whatever will I do?

 

[ikjadoon]

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.

Right, right. My points are more, *if* it becomes a problem. I wrote a long post a while ago in this thread that Tesla wouldn't really need to do anything (except, as usual, build more chargers, more slots, and faster chargers) and if we ever needed a fine, this would be the only reasonable one.

But, nonetheless, I'm glad to hear that. I think the slow rollout of the 3 will help, too: people become acclimated to the Superchargers' purpose and use and etiquette.

 

[Ben W]

- my point is that local use is maybe ~5% of SC use...

Local charging is MUCH higher than 5%. (Where did you get this number?) I would guess it's closer to 30%. When the Model 3 comes out, and a lot fewer owners have access to 220v charging at home, the percentage will almost certainly grow even further.

Waitasec... Seriously? That's what you... guess? Really?

Sigh. Red Sage, before you blow a snark gasket, please read the context of what I wrote. (Quoted above from nwdiver's post to clarify.) My 30% figure referred to "30% of SC use". In other words, my estimate is that 30% of the miles currently provided by superchargers are used for local driving, while 70% are used for long-distance driving. I did not mean that 30% of all owners charge mainly or exclusively at superchargers; that is of course ridiculous. (I would put that figure at closer to 2-3% for the current fleet, but likely to rise to ~10% for the Model 3 fleet if SC stays free/unlimited.) Still, even the current amount of local charging puts a significant strain on the SC system that could be mitigated substantially by a pay-per-use structure. It's not problematic enough for the S/X fleet to warrant switching, but I suspect it will be for the Model 3 fleet.

Looked at another way: If the fraction of owners who depend heavily on local supercharging quadruples from 2.5% to 10%, as I suspect it might as the fleet transitions to Model 3, this implies that the SC network will have to handle over double the demand per car (on average) for the Model 3 fleet as it does for the Model S/X fleet. So would Tesla then have to start charging $4k upfront for unlimited Model 3 charging, and keep building out more superchargers like gangbusters to try and keep up? To me that seems really, really unsustainable. And when Tesla eventually builds a $20k car, and ~20% of its buyers would likely charge primarily at the SC's, would they then need the unlimited supercharging option to be $8k? You see the problem, I hope.