-
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
amb3rgris
Member
Bimbels already noted that superchargers entirely powered by solar (or even partially) are not close to being the standard.
But I find that the biggest challenge doesn't appear to be the cost of the electricity, but the few selfish people who break the system for the rest. I'm thinking of the situation where someone charges excessively locally, or parks their car for a long time while charging, thus drastically altering the expected availability of a charging spot.
I think we all can think of anecdotal examples where "free!!!" results in a ridiculous pile up of people, even where the perceived benefit is negligible (i.e. Costco samples, where I've seen grown adults push kids out of the way for what? A small cup of cereal, or a cracker? Or a booth where someone is giving out a pen, or a re-usable shopping bag).
While it seems to be mostly edge cases now, once M3's start rolling out en mass I imagine this situation will deteriorate exponentially.
SureValla
Member
I don't think charging to use a SC is going to solve a volume problem so I don't feel this is a good argument for why it won't be free. There will be enough people driving 3's that even if people are responsible in using the SC network they will still be jammed. No amount of money will discourage enough people to prevent this.
IMO the only argument for a paywall is that Tesla will need cash for upkeep of the stations. I understand many will probably go solar but there is still maintenance involved. However, I believe Tesla is a nice enough company to waive this in favor of profit.
Steepler2k
Member
Do you think there will come a point that there are "enough" superchargers? If so, then whenever that point is reached, the fee baked into the price of every Tesla that is devoted to the supercharger infrastructure is no longer required and can then go strictly to funding maintenance and power costs. At that point, the 1-2k/car will likely be far more than is required and turn into a profit making venture.
I don't know if it will be free (aka included) or not. I don't really care either way, as I'll get it. We'll use our ICE SUV for family trips that bring the dogs and the model 3 for trips without them. I'm going to put the supercharger network to use, and I don't want the hassle of a pay per use/month/year subscription model. I'm OK with "overpaying" for it, as I know I'll never draw 2k worth of electricity. Convenience is nice.
I don't know if it will be free (aka included) or not. I don't really care either way, as I'll get it. We'll use our ICE SUV for family trips that bring the dogs and the model 3 for trips without them. I'm going to put the supercharger network to use, and I don't want the hassle of a pay per use/month/year subscription model. I'm OK with "overpaying" for it, as I know I'll never draw 2k worth of electricity. Convenience is nice.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I disagree it can't be free forever (by "free" I mean non-pay-per-use, which would include the 60kWh even though the option cost $2k). If supercharger usage remains around 10% of total miles and the cost is covered as a fixed amount per vehicle (as it is today) then the amount of volume and margin is irrelevant. This 10% is sustainable if superchargers are primarily for long distance trips (for US market, only roughly 15% of miles traveled are on trips over 100 miles).
The biggest problem with this is that urban superchargers and locals break this model (they charge practically 100% on superchargers). Just having a population of 10% urban/local users pushes demand to 19% of total miles. This bump in demand not only increases electricity/maintenance costs, but also congestion. The biggest customer experience problem is congestion and most schemes are designed to address this (not necessarily concerned about affordability for Tesla).
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think in most cases the land owners want Tesla superchargers there and don't charge them much, if anything.
BByrne
Member
I think some people are confusing the car's supercharging capabilities with the supercharger service. I agree that it's reasonable to assume there will be a price associated with upgrading your Model 3 with supercharging capability. But I still think that Elon Musk is so focused on energy sustainability that he'd rather we charge from his solar powered superchargers than from the grid.
All the things about "people stay in stalls too long" or "they charge at the stalls rather than at home" sounds kinda snobby... I believe that it can be frustrating, but they're DOUBLING the number of chargers, superchargers on the grid can be converted to solar, and they're working on in-car software that helps figure out if there are open stalls.
Bimbels
GoldMember
Tesla is cognizant of the urban dweller - see NYC.
Tesla charging stations outnumber gas stations in Manhattan | ExtremeTech
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The standard supercharger model does not require any change of money between the land owner and Tesla. Tesla pays for everything related to install, electricity, maintenance, etc. The owner provides the parking spots and land. What the owner gets is extra business as a bonus.
Tech Crunch: What It Takes To Be A Tesla Supercharger Partner - Inside EVs
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
NYC is the perfect example. Tesla originally planned to install supercharger stations in NYC (just like they did in Hong Kong, London, Beijing, Shanghai, etc). Instead they opted to install destination chargers (HPWC and J1772 EVSEs). These are not only much cheaper to install (Tesla only donates the EVSEs and pays $1500 per charger toward installation), but also the location owners pay for all the electricity. It is pretty clear that Tesla can't rely on urban superchargers to support urban dwellers.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It is not snobbishness, it is frustration. Put yourself in the shoes of someone on a long trip. You get to the station and it is all full: a bunch of chargers have cars that have finished charging and are just parked there because the owners are busy shopping. Or there are some charging there that are only doing so to save on home charging electricity costs. Those owners can easily move their cars after it is done charging and continue shopping, and those trying to save on home charging costs can easily charge at home or pick a less busy time to charge. It is quite easy to see why this is frustrating.
Tesla's primary goal with superchargers were to enable long distance trips (secondary goal to provide a charging solution to those without the easy option of home charging), not to serve as a parking space, nor to help people save on home charging electricity costs.
Last edited:
"Free" or "Zero incremental cost" of anything always always leads to abuse, and eventually to shortages. Some sort of pay per use is the only way this will work. It doesn't have to be costly... but it has to be enough to deter people from wandering off for 2 hours leaving others to wait, and enough to make it cheaper to charge at home.
Bimbels
GoldMember
While my husband says I have too much faith in my fellow man, I do not believe the influx of lowly model 3 owners will mean that people suddenly start being jerks. Because even the jerks will have to wait if other jerks are being jerks, and they won't like it either.
We get notifications on our app when our charging is complete (a 15 minute heads up, actually) - and that is assuming people are using SCs to "fill up" - which most do not. Most charge for 15-20 minutes at a time - enough to get to their next charge stop or destination. This is because as you get more "full", charging slows quite a bit and becomes a waste of time. Those who intend to charge longer have been good about leaving their contact info on the dash. Even when I've used SC's located in shopping centers (where people would be more likely to charge longer than necessary) as opposed to rest areas, I've never had to wait.
Like I have said before - 99% of the time I am alone charging. Once in a while I will overlap with another car for a few minutes. Tesla intends to expand the SC network in relation to fleet size. In the few locations in the US (primarily CA) where it is already an issue, they are actively working to address it. People are clutching their pearls a bit here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Tesla will be able to manage all this. 90% of the network is already capable of handling it, and the other 10% can be built on as demand dictates (already happening in California). Tesla is already quite proactive in regards to expanding the network and should be able to handle the demand.
I think they will charge a fee to activate supercharging on the 3, but I don't agree that it will be $2000. That is a lot, especially on a car targeted for the "masses." It defeats the purpose of the no limits EV. I think something along the lines of $250 designed to pay for electricity and maintenance is more likely. Most of the physical network has already been paid for, and expansion will either be a loss or paid for by the massive amount of reservations.
I think they will charge a fee to activate supercharging on the 3, but I don't agree that it will be $2000. That is a lot, especially on a car targeted for the "masses." It defeats the purpose of the no limits EV. I think something along the lines of $250 designed to pay for electricity and maintenance is more likely. Most of the physical network has already been paid for, and expansion will either be a loss or paid for by the massive amount of reservations.
While not the same thing Elon says that Solar City generates enough power to charge the entire fleet:
While my husband says I have too much faith in my fellow man, I do not believe the influx of lowly model 3 owners will mean that people suddenly start being jerks. Because even the d*cks will have to wait if other jerks are being jerks, and they won't like it either.
We get notifications on our app when our charging is complete (a 15 minute heads up, actually) - and that is assuming people are using SCs to "fill up" - which most do not. Most charge for 15-20 minutes at a time - enough to get to their next charge stop or destination. This is because as you get more "full", charging slows quite a bit and becomes a waste of time. Those who intend to charge longer have been good about leaving their contact info on the dash. Even when I've used SC's located in shopping centers (where people would be more likely to charge longer than necessary) as opposed to rest areas, I've never had to wait.
Like I have said before - 99% of the time I am alone charging. Once in a while I will overlap with another car for a few minutes. Tesla intends to expand the SC network in relation to fleet size. In the few locations in the US (primarily CA) where it is already an issue, they are actively working to address it. People are clutching their pearls a bit here.
Oh, I'm well aware of how it works. I've have my S for going on 17 months now. It has nothing to do with 3 or S or X or anything else. There is a certain percentage of inconsiderate "jerks" in the population that ruin things. It's like that for anything unlimited. I was honestly shocked when I found out the some S owners were using SCs rather than pay for electricity at home. Good grief.
And yes, you have too much faith in your fellow man. I've had that beaten out of me through decades of experience in dealing with my fellow man.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bimbels
GoldMember
Haha...you'd think my job of dealing with millions of people over 27 years would have ruined me.
Still, I refuse to worry about a problem until it's actually a problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're dreaming. $250 won't remotely cover it. At 12 cents/kwh, doing 2 full charge trips (or one return trip) per month, the cost of power alone for one year exceeds $250. And that doesn't cover any of the install/maintenance costs on the station. Even at $2k per car, Tesla is losing money on it. The margins on a 35K car will not permit them to absorb those losses.
longshadows
Member
It's a tricky matter depending on the owner's circumstances. In some parts of the country, a Supercharge station may be fifty or more miles away and only used/needed when a long distance trip is made, which for some could only be a few times a year. Home charging is our only practical option.
If we have to pay $1,000 or more up front to access SC, which we'd only use a few times a year, that would not be cost-effective. On the other hand TMC can't know who and how many will be in such a boat (or maybe they can) and know if including SC is cost-effective for them. Otherwise, I'd opt for the pay-per-use, if the price is reasonable. In the final analysis, if we want to take our future Model 3's on road trips, we'll have to accept whatever TMC provides. It's not like we have a choice, if we want to own a Tesla.
If we have to pay $1,000 or more up front to access SC, which we'd only use a few times a year, that would not be cost-effective. On the other hand TMC can't know who and how many will be in such a boat (or maybe they can) and know if including SC is cost-effective for them. Otherwise, I'd opt for the pay-per-use, if the price is reasonable. In the final analysis, if we want to take our future Model 3's on road trips, we'll have to accept whatever TMC provides. It's not like we have a choice, if we want to own a Tesla.
It's a tricky matter depending on the owner's circumstances. In some parts of the country, a Supercharge station may be fifty or more miles away and only used/needed when a long distance trip is made, which for some could only be a few times a year. Home charging is our only practical option.
If we have to pay $1,000 or more up front to access SC, which we'd only use a few times a year, that would not be cost-effective. On the other hand TMC can't know who and how many will be in such a boat (or maybe they can) and know if including SC is cost-effective for them. Otherwise, I'd opt for the pay-per-use, if the price is reasonable. In the final analysis, if we want to take our future Model 3's on road trips, we'll have to accept whatever TMC provides. It's not like we have a choice, if we want to own a Tesla.
This is exactly why I think it will inevitably be pay-per-use. When you're blessed with the good fortune to be able to buy a car for 100K, then $2,000 for unlimited charging isn't much to add. But at 35K people are, quite rightly, going to be more cautious. And I entirely agree. Why would you spend 2K for something that you would only use a few times per year? Yet, when you do need it, it's invaluable.
For sure.. pay per use.
Similar threads
