Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
My estimation is that if 500K new M3's went out today - and dispersed evenly in the US only....that there would be 9K more EV cars in the state of Illinois. The current SC Tesla capacity would be fine what that number as it stands right now. Not everyone charges as the same time and Half of the folks won't even purchase the SC package as it stands. SC'ing will be just fine.

Now lets turn the numbers back to reality and know that the 325K M3 reservations span the globe. Not just the US. I would be shocked if there 2K orders in Illinois. 2K orders in 18 months (after many more SC's will be installed ) will be able to charge when they want. Its not really going to be a problem.

Tesla plans on making 500k cars in 2018 and 2019. Historically 50% of sales are in the US. Right now there are about 60k cars in the US from all the previous years. I estimate that by 2020 there will be around 750k to a million Tesla's in the US if they stick to their timeline.

So when you go to a super charger in Illinois and see 1 or 2 cars there at any given time. Imagine 10 times more. Now you have 10-20 cars there at any given time. Add to that people's irrational behavior... They will fully charge rather than wait again at the next charger, Since most spots will be taken charging will be slower. This will be a huge PR nightmare for Tesla and EV's in general.

And things only get worse from there as Tesla will be making another 500+k cars per year. Each year will get worse and worse.
 
Tesla plans on making 500k cars in 2018 and 2019. Historically 50% of sales are in the US. Right now there are about 60k cars in the US from all the previous years. I estimate that by 2020 there will be around 750k to a million Tesla's in the US if they stick to their timeline.

So when you go to a super charger in Illinois and see 1 or 2 cars there at any given time. Imagine 10 times more. Now you have 10-20 cars there at any given time. Add to that people's irrational behavior... They will fully charge rather than wait again at the next charger, Since most spots will be taken charging will be slower. This will be a huge PR nightmare for Tesla and EV's in general.

And things only get worse from there as Tesla will be making another 500+k cars per year. Each year will get worse and worse.
No. Because the grand majority of people who buy within the next five years will primarily charge at home or at work. They will no longer be the 'captive audience' that must go to the gas station to fill up once or twice a week. The sheer joy of waking up to a 'full tank' every day will prevent them from using Superchargers on a regular basis. And, at this price point, the majority of buyers will have regular jobs with at most two or three weeks of vacation time per year. There won't be a bunch of retirees that decide to take three month road trips a couple of times a year. The Supercharger network will double by the end of 2017. So, those locations where you might see two cars today, will only have maybe one car -- or even none -- when you arrive by that time.

And, with 500,000 cars arriving on the market each year, something like 40% to 50% will be for US Customers. Superchargers will be distributed accordingly. So, we are speaking of 200,000 to 250,000 cars. If the distribution is half-and-half between Generation II and Generation III cars, that would be 100,000 to 125,000 of each. If you presume that Model S and Model X each contribute $2,000 per vehicle toward the Supercharger network, that is $200,000,000 to $250,000,000. And if you believe that only $500 would activate Supercharger access for a Model ☰ that adds $50,000,000 to $62,500,000 to the pot.

So, US sales would contribute from $250,000,000 to $312,500,000 toward the Supercharger network each year. Let's say that half that would be used for installation, administration, and maintenance expenses, and the rest would be used for energizing them.

If it costs $400,000 per Supercharger to set up an 8-stall location: You can add 312 of them every year using $125,000,000 and 390 of them each year with $156,250,000.

If electricity is 10 cents per kWh, and most people add 40 kWh ($4.00 worth) before moving on to their next stop: You can have 31,250,000 charging sessions with $125,000,000 and 39,062,500 charging sessions using a $156,250,000 pot.

Or, if you presume most drivers have a 90 kWh battery pack that they charge from 20% (18 kWh) to 90% (81 kWh) before moving on, adding 63 kWh ($6.30) per stop, and just for the fun of it you impose a 15% penalty for induction losses during charging, that means you actually pay for 74 kWh ($7.41) per fillup, then: You can have 'only' 16,869,095 to 21,086,369 charging sessions using the funds raised through annual car sales.

At some point the range for Tesla Motors' electric vehicles will improve so much that for many people public charging will rarely be needed at all. Imagine only needing to stop six to eight times on a 3,000 mile trip. Most of those stops would be to fulfill biological needs for food, rest, or lavatory visits. Charging the car would be less than a secondary concern. By the time that happens, the saturation of Supercharger locations will be far ahead of the need to expand. Much as is the case with gas stations today for ICE.
 
The bad behavior is just beginning ... Tesla Supercharger etiquette put forward after a misconduct by a Model X owner

upload_2016-6-6_10-1-43.png
 
@Red Sage Your numbers are a bit off because electricity for commercial use is much more expensive than for home specially when you're pulling as much power at once as the superchargers do. Without going into specifics they're probably paying .25+ per KWH. Which for a 50 KWH charge would be about $12.50. You figure each customer does this about 10 times a year. That's $125 a year x 10 years and that's $1250 being very conservative just for the electricity. I know I work full time and still have used it at least 20 times in the year I've owned my car.

I think the $2000 Tesla is charging is more like a break even point and doesn't include the hardware or maintenance.
 
Without going into specifics they're probably paying .25+ per KWH.
If Tesla Motors pays anywhere near that much for electricity, it would be due to buying strictly from suppliers that solely provide power from renewable sources. As most people don't use Superchargers at all, the actual amount they pay per Customer per kWh is likely around three cents. When you buy one of their cars, you aren't paying for your own use of Superchargers, you are paying for those who come after you.

I think the $2000 Tesla is charging is more like a break even point and doesn't include the hardware or maintenance.
The original point of the $2,000 was specifically for the hardware to be installed in a Model S 60. Prior to October 2012 when the official Supercharger unveiling was done, most Tesla Enthusiasts thought that there would be a subscription plan or pay-per-use system in place to use Superchargers. They were all very surprised when it was announced as 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' instead.
 
When you buy one of their cars, you aren't paying for your own use of Superchargers, you are paying for those who come after you.
This is starting to sound like something Madoff would have said. "Your investment isn't for your own gain, it's to pay off people before and after, unless you're caught holding the hot potato."

This idea works great while the firm is growing - eventually, you could have 10M Tesla's on the road, and if you're selling even 1M/year, does that 10% now pay for the power for the rest?

On a cash flow perspective, maybe for a while, but from the perspective of a long term sustainable solution, the customer should be charged for the amount that their segment will use, on average. Whether Tesla charges them up front and earmarks that capital (notice I say capital, not cash, but non-Finance folks shouldn't care) or whether Tesla just asks for a payout over time shouldn't matter too much. Yes, a portion of the supercharger access is to fund the build of the stations - you can easily accomplish that by saying, "To use these, you need to buy a membership of $X for equipment and then pay per charge, or pay the expected usage plus equipment charges up front, or let us (Tesla) place the SC's as needed and your payment on a per charge basis will help us cover the depreciation and usage of the machinery in place at each supercharger."

There are a number of ways to accomplish this, but my point is only that if you ignore cash flow in and out of the company, which is critical, because they're making investments for decades to come, and focus on the accounting profitability, a customer should not be seen as "paying for those who come after you."

I know this is nuanced, but I think it's important in general. Early adopters have done a wonder to enable this business to be built and pursue everything. I struggle to use the word "subsidize" or "paying for those who come after you."
 
This is starting to sound like something Madoff would have said. "Your investment isn't for your own gain, it's to pay off people before and after, unless you're caught holding the hot potato."
This has crossed my mind in these discussions as well, but in reality it's the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme relies on future investments to pay back past investors. That means a need for constant growth. This is pay-it-forward, not pay-it-backward. Iznop scheme?

I think the rest of your post is less about the Ponzi-esque nature but more about a distaste for the concept of customer funds being used to subsidize other customers. And if I'm misreading that, please accept my apology in advance.

The thing about subsidizing or paying forward in business is that most businesses do it. Profits from sales are rarely distributed in whole to the shareholders. They're retained, put into R&D for new products, new manufacturing facilities for scaling, etc. Nearly every time you make a purchase, you're paying forward into whatever the next goal of the business might be. My Apple iPhone purchases paid, to some small degree, for the design and manufacture an iWatch I'll never own.

Insurance is another great example. If you buy insurance, you're subsidizing the claims of others unless you're the bulk recipient. As a young person paying health insurance, I am definitely paying for sicker (and often older) people; my premiums have rarely worked out in my favor.

What determines the cost is a combination of things, but the underlying cost of the product and/or service is only a floor to profitability. The real determining factor is what the market will bear.
 
If Tesla Motors pays anywhere near that much for electricity, it would be due to buying strictly from suppliers that solely provide power from renewable sources

Not really. I can speak to this from direct experience. I have a commercial electricity account (Commonwealth Edison), and my last bill was $2.03/kWh.

Yes, you (probably) read that correctly. 20 times a typical residential rate of $0.10. Granted, there are extenuating circumstances at play in my specific case - but $0.25/kWh is certainly within expectation.

The reason is that in addition to the per kWh charge, there is also a "capacity" charge (also commonly referred to as a demand charge). The capacity charge is based on your peak usage - and the rationale is that it pays for the standby power generation capacity to accommodate peak usage.

Capacity charges (and their underlying cause) are the target of Tesla Energy, and so it makes sense that Tesla uses its own batteries at certain Superchargers to avoid (minimize) them. However, those batteries don't exactly grow on trees either.
 
It's just you. It was in Newark, DE and was posted and discussed at length on reddit and Facebook.

I can see why he is doing it not that I condone it....

The bike rack probably prevented him to back into the stall and the charge cable is just too short.

I would have parked right behind him on the left and go for dinner if I see this. ;)

BTW, I have seen this at Harris Ranch once in the middle of the night in one of the stalls which required back up.
 
This has crossed my mind in these discussions as well, but in reality it's the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme relies on future investments to pay back past investors. That means a need for constant growth. This is pay-it-forward, not pay-it-backward. Iznop scheme?
It depends on the circumstances. If the assumption is that the upfront funds is not enough to pay for the average usage customers (as I believe the argument is), then it really is like a ponzi scheme, since all that is funding the current network is continual growth. As soon as growth stabilizes, the network would not be able to be maintained with given amount.
 
This is starting to sound like something Madoff would have said. "Your investment isn't for your own gain, it's to pay off people before and after, unless you're caught holding the hot potato."

This idea works great while the firm is growing - eventually, you could have 10M Tesla's on the road, and if you're selling even 1M/year, does that 10% now pay for the power for the rest?

On a cash flow perspective, maybe for a while, but from the perspective of a long term sustainable solution, the customer should be charged for the amount that their segment will use, on average. Whether Tesla charges them up front and earmarks that capital (notice I say capital, not cash, but non-Finance folks shouldn't care) or whether Tesla just asks for a payout over time shouldn't matter too much. Yes, a portion of the supercharger access is to fund the build of the stations - you can easily accomplish that by saying, "To use these, you need to buy a membership of $X for equipment and then pay per charge, or pay the expected usage plus equipment charges up front, or let us (Tesla) place the SC's as needed and your payment on a per charge basis will help us cover the depreciation and usage of the machinery in place at each supercharger."

There are a number of ways to accomplish this, but my point is only that if you ignore cash flow in and out of the company, which is critical, because they're making investments for decades to come, and focus on the accounting profitability, a customer should not be seen as "paying for those who come after you."

I know this is nuanced, but I think it's important in general. Early adopters have done a wonder to enable this business to be built and pursue everything. I struggle to use the word "subsidize" or "paying for those who come after you."

I have explained above part of my beliefs regarding this. I'll try to expand upon it a bit here. Too often, whatever Tesla Motors attempts is referred to as a Ponzi scheme, or some other type of scam. I don't see it that way at all. Ten years ago Tesla Motors let it be known they intended to have a three stage plan, and that each Generation of vehicles would enable to next. that is a valid business plan, and certainly seems to be working, despite protests from more conservative circles.

The Supercharger network, with 270 sites in the US today, and due to be doubled by the end of 2017, is already beyond the approximately 200 locations that Tesla Motors originally forecast as being necessary to enable long distance travel on our highways. It would be unwise to presume that having perhaps 150% saturation beyond that 200 locations by the end of 2017 is intended to be solely for use by Model S and Model X. No. That expansion is specifically to allow use by Model ☰ buyers. So, yes, by buying today, you are paying for the infrastructure that will be used by future buyers. That also includes Tesla Stores/Galleries, and Service Centers. It also includes, I hope, what would be Tesla Waypoint or Tesla Depot locations that catered to long distance travel by way of electric vehicles, some day.

I expect Tesla Motors to grow to the point where they sell around 10,000,000 units per year, and perhaps a third of those sold in the US. I would hope they would also own around 33% of a 30,000,000+ unit worldwide market for fully electric vehicles worldwide. This will require aggressive expansion, and Tesla Motors already knows they cannot hope to change over the entirety of personal transportation to electric vehicles on their own. That is why they encourage competition, again, over the protests of those who would prefer they rose to domination instead. It is better to have 33% of a 30,000,000 unit annual market than to have 99.9999% of a 10,000,000 unit annual market. Competition is better than domination.

While the company is growing, anything that would deter adoption of their electric vehicles must be avoided. Everything that would encourage use of their cars should be expanded upon. I believe that until such point as they have an annual capacity in the 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 unit range, Tesla Motors will be in danger of missing out on potential for lasting profitability and continual survival. The Supercharger network is a primary tool (or weapon) to ensure that takes place, as a focus of marketing. It isn't enough that electric cars costs less to operate on a daily basis. It helps a whole lot first to know that you won't end up stranded somewhere, and second to know that it won't cost you anything (beyond the initial purchase of the car) to get back home safely from your travels.

I think that every Model ☰ will come with Supercharger access enabled. It may be limited in some way for those that purchase the base version of the car. I suspect that limitation will be based upon time, perhaps only lasting a year or two, or three or four, five on the outside. At the end of that time frame, someone who had barely (or never) used Superchargers at all, might decide not to re-up. Some might decide to just get the limited access for a similar time period again. And others might decide to upgrade to the full blown 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)' plan instead. But no, pay-per-use is not at all necessary at this juncture or for some time to come.
 
It depends on the circumstances. If the assumption is that the upfront funds is not enough to pay for the average usage customers (as I believe the argument is), then it really is like a ponzi scheme, since all that is funding the current network is continual growth
I probably misread the argument, then. I don't know what average usage is going to be, and what the real value assigned to Supercharging might be. I hate to use the oft-abused $2k number, but given a relatively static infrastructure, that seems like it would cover at least a decade's worth of average long-distance Supercharging. Which would imply that "life of the car" might wind up changing to "as long as you own it".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
Good evening. Finally got to the end after reading all 67 pages of comments (not all in one sitting I may add), which has given me time to appreciate some of the opinions and the merits of the discussion. Now, firstly I'd like to disclose my position is of a current non-owner with a Model 3 reservation, so you'd be quite right with the assumption I have no personal experience in using a SC, queue or not. Just trying to see things from all perspectives and not just my own situation.

From what I've read there seems to me there are possibly three options which Tesla have the option to open to Model 3 owners.

A subscription / Pay As You Go option. This could be done via the MyTesla portal, buying credits (for example. 1credit = 10% charge) or by time period (daily/weekly/monthly/annual pass) or some other metric. I can't help but think this would compare in the similar way PAYG mobiles work in comparison to pay monthly contracts. Ideally I think everyone on the next option would be better, but as people have stated before a £2000 pre-pay option might be too much for some to swallow, especially if it's just for that one or two trips a year. So giving people the freedom to travel at least on a PAYG tariff is a better way to introduce them to the joys of Supercharging than never letting them use them at all.

An upfront payment for "Free for Life" usage for the vehicle. Possibly similar to the S with a fee of £2000 if purchased with the car, greater if an after-sale extra. Others have suggested it'd be cheaper ranging from £500 - £1000. Possibly my favourite option as even at £2000 for me that's currently a year's worth of fuel, but then I never have to pay for fuel again while out on the road. Freedom to use any SC, anywhere, for free. Though currently I don't do a great deal of long journeys there is the possibility that might change in the future.
The most important thing I think as well with this option is that you are investing in the future, whether or not you're on-board with Elon's vision of green energy, self-driving vehicles and day-tripping to Mars. If you're buying into a Tesla vehicle it is in your own interest to support the SC network to give yourself that flexibility to drive practically anywhere for free in the future. So I guess ultimately it's less about if you'll ever use that £2000 worth of electricity you feel you have pre-paid for and more about doing what all the buyers of the Roadsters, the Model S and Model Xs have been doing from the start and paying your bit to enable Elon and Co to continue to pay for the SC network and to help them make that even more affordable car next time.

Finally, don't buy into the SC network at all. Stay local or use 3rd party chargers and destination chargers only. That is an equally valid option for those who feel they won't use an SC ever, or feel that the SC network won't survive the hordes of Model 3s about to slowly get unleashed over the next decade or so... I would hope these people are the minority.

As for congestion at SC locations. I read that it is an issue is a select few locations, and that people are concerned that for them the numbers don't add up in a way that means key locations will continue to be workable. Can we not have a little faith that those with the correct figures have thought of this. They can address it as they have with parking attendants, possibly make key locations pay for parking (time) to encourage people to move on (if only over the road to a non-SC parking space), possibly by imposing penalties on those who they deem to abuse the SC locations (which I'm not even going to guess at how they would determine that, only that obviously they have a method as the previous letters have shown).

Just my thoughts on this, obviously none of us knows what's around the corner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
I expect Tesla Motors to grow to the point where they sell around 10,000,000 units per year, and perhaps a third of those sold in the US. I would hope they would also own around 33% of a 30,000,000+ unit worldwide market for fully electric vehicles worldwide.
Red, as the numbers of non-Tesla EVs begin to rise from all the other car manufacturers, eventually totaling tens of millions of non-Tesla EVs/year, how do you foresee all the other car companies handling the long-distance charging problem?

1. Each build their own network
2. Lease Tesla's network
3. Let 3rd parties handle it

If #3, how would that impact Tesla's network and pay once use-model?
 
Tesla plans on making 500k cars in 2018 and 2019. Historically 50% of sales are in the US. Right now there are about 60k cars in the US from all the previous years. I estimate that by 2020 there will be around 750k to a million Tesla's in the US if they stick to their timeline.

So when you go to a super charger in Illinois and see 1 or 2 cars there at any given time. Imagine 10 times more. Now you have 10-20 cars there at any given time. Add to that people's irrational behavior... They will fully charge rather than wait again at the next charger, Since most spots will be taken charging will be slower. This will be a huge PR nightmare for Tesla and EV's in general.

And things only get worse from there as Tesla will be making another 500+k cars per year. Each year will get worse and worse.
Hmmm,

I certainly don't anticipate 10 times more Teslas in any one town in the near future. If any single town tripples its Tesla count after M3 deliveries....I would be shocked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
So when you go to a super charger in Illinois and see 1 or 2 cars there at any given time. Imagine 10 times more.

Ok. I can also imagine significantly more Superchargers, as can be seen by their density in California vs Texas. At the moment there's 2 conflicting needs for new superchargers locations.
  1. make travel possible were it currently isn't, such as from Houston to El Paso
  2. provide additional locations where demand is high
Eventually the first will go away, possibly even by the time the Model 3 is released, making it significantly easier for Tesla to address the second.