Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[Ben W]

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

Talk about the exception that proves the rule Is it a plug-in Prius? Non-plugin Prii (Priuses? Priodes?) get about 50mpg EPA. So 421 miles would typically use about 8.5 gallons. If you're hypermiling, say 7.5 gallons, at about $2.10 a gallon, which is the going rate in your home state of NH. I live in CA, where the current price is more like $2.80/gallon, so I was thinking more in those terms.

The point is, $0.25/min pay-per-use supercharging would still be a great deal relative to typical gas cost/usage. If the small fee were enough to prevent abuse, which I believe it is, then such a system would really be a win-win.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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) as it does now. So would Tesla then have to start charging $4k upfront for unlimited, and keep building out more superchargers at an even more breakneck pace? To me that seems really, really unsustainable. And when they eventually build a $20k car, and 20% of its buyers would likely charge mainly at the SC's, would they then need the unlimited supercharging option to be $8k? You see the problem, I hope.

Your argument is still predicated on the assumption that the Model 3 means a significant percentage increase (you are talking about a 4x jump) in local travel on the supercharger network, an assumption that so far has no evidence presented to support it other than your speculation. For example, demonstrating that the lowest end models (like S60, 70D, S70) are the ones that disproportionately travel locally would at least provide some evidence.

 

[Ben W]

Your argument is still predicated on the assumption that the Model 3 means a significant percentage increase (you are talking about a 4x jump) in local travel on the supercharger network, an assumption that so far has no evidence presented to support it other than your speculation. For example, demonstrating that the lowest end models (like S60, 70D, S70) are the ones that disproportionately travel locally would at least provide some evidence.

True. I clearly acknowledge that this is pure speculation. (Although assuming that there will NOT be a significant percentage increase is equally pure speculation.) Tesla certainly has better data, though I'm not sure how meaningful it can be to extrapolate from $70-140k all the way down to $35k. The ground-truth curve is probably quite nonlinear.

Just to re-emphasize an earlier point, no one is claiming that Model 3 owners will have less integrity or conscience than Model S/X owners. It's simply a reality that many people in that economic bracket are not very well set up for home charging; for instance, some have only street parking, and can't exactly run an extension cord. (I know a few who are currently on the wait list for the Model 3 who are in this situation. Local SC is their backup plan until they figure it out.)

 

[Archer]

Elon could have made service centers a profit center but he chose not to. He could have made supercharging a billable network for users but he has chosen not to. He could decide not to invest R&D into creating a drive train that can last a million miles but he's doing that. He could have just focused on the high end luxury market and be okay with being incredibly rich until he died. No, he built the gigafactory in order to make an affordable EV. Musk's vision isn't driven by profit but to fundamentally change the world for the better. If free charging is susantinable, according to Tesla VP's recent comment, then I'm just going to have faith that they know what they are doing to make the transition away from fossil fuels as fast as possible.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Something I don't think that has been brought up is: Would this be the time to reconsider the battery swap option? I know the initial battery swap program was a dismal failure but it might be worth taking a second look once the Model 3 becomes more mainstream. I'm just hoping we never see anything like the Tejon Ranch Christmas debacle.

For those that are new to this here's a video of it in action:

Battery Swap Event

The idea is approximately 3min per swap at a rate of $80. I'm sure in reality it's longer. You have to come back to retrieve your original battery which will be charged. So at a minimum it will be $160. At least that was the idea back in 2013. Battery prices are cheaper so I don't know how that may or will affect their original service price.

This could give give Model 3 owners a pay per use option, albeit one that would be more expensive than current gasoline prices.

I watched the battery-swap video and thought Wow. But then....imagine the logistics of having spare batteries at every SC location, the lift and the staff 24 hr/d. Battery fill is much better widespread model than battery swap.

Now - the idea that I could high-center my car and damage this vital component, but could swap it out and get back on the road...that is a real sweet comforting design. That I could swap a 60 kWh battery for a 90 kWh battery by a few bolts...that is even sweeter. Buy an entry level of car and later have life circumstances where longer range is needed - and to be able to update with an office visit - I like that.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

As I look at the highways in my neck of the woods.....If the SC are located like truck stops - on major intersection offramps, they will be several miles from bedroom communities. I try to imagine how I could abuse the free fill option - drive 15 miles one way and hang out there instead of home. I can see utilizing that type of location during long-distance travel, but not at all for local use.
With my neck of the woods as a model, the "abuse" discussion does not make sense. Perhaps others live in bedroom communities that are closer to highways. Perhaps SC are being located off highway corridors and into bedroom communities. The only SC I have seen was a gang of 6 on a pad (none being used at 2:00 pm Fri afternoon near where two major highways intersect).

I can understand the worry that more cars will tax the current system....but the whole abuse discussion just does not fit with my reality.

Now - as I conduct business, decisions are made between good choices and better choices. There are champions for each - and when the other guy wins, the looser can bring up the I-told-you-so for years to come. Here, we have a fellow Elon Musk that has rolled out his vision - and there are supporters and critics of his vision. Unless we are being paid to advise him, we are in the critic circle. We can only vote with our feet. We can choose to accept his plans - or try to impose our vision of reality (cost is more important than customer service) when we really don't have a good understanding of the vision.

Its been an interesting intellectual exercise. Some great insights into human psychology (greed, time value of ones own time, crowd mentality over limited resources). I'm ready to plan on home 14-50 for local use and SC for long distance...just as Musk visioned.

 

[Drivin]

As I look at the highways in my neck of the woods.....If the SC are located like truck stops - on major intersection offramps, they will be several miles from bedroom communities. I try to imagine how I could abuse the free fill option - drive 15 miles one way and hang out there instead of home. I can see utilizing that type of location during long-distance travel, but not at all for local use.
With my neck of the woods as a model, the "abuse" discussion does not make sense. Perhaps others live in bedroom communities that are closer to highways. Perhaps SC are being located off highway corridors and into bedroom communities. .

That is exactly the point.
Even in CA where the superchargers can be crowded during 3 day weekends, the idea that a local is going to say "hey, I got an idea, let me get on the crowded highways during the busiest travel times this weekend, to go to a supercharger that has a bunch of other people on it so I can save a couple of bucks" makes no sense.
If they are dumb enough to do that, they probably wouldn't be smart enough to be able to afford a Tesla anyway.

Of course, that "LA local" may also be driving from SF to San DIego and stops off at an LA Supercharger because he needs to.

There are ways to imagine how an actual "abuse" would occur (although supercharging was not sold with restrictions - you can use it to travel across the country every week if you want), it would take a lot of effort and inconvenience and is therefore most likely restricted to the most dedicated people who are really trying to save every last dollar.

 

[ttupper92618]

I'll be the iconoclast in this discussion, and argue that I think current supercharger policy is almost guaranteed to foster over-utilization of the supercharger network, and I think it will get greatly worse with model 3. People who live where electricity is cheap cannot understand this, so I will spell it out: in many areas, energy prices per KWh can exceed .30 to .45 KWh. That in turn creates a strong incentive in these areas to abuse the supercharger network, based on nothing more than energy prices. For example, in Southern California where I live, residential prices per KWh can hit .30 on the standard residential plan. So, for owners that don't investigate the options for off-peak billing plans (or for whom they are unavailable), charging their car at home can be equivalent to, or actually cost MORE... than fueling an ICE car (especially recently). That is a strong incentive to never charge at home, but only with 'free' superchargers... because hey, why would I want to pay $25 per charge when I could do it for 'free' at the local supercharger? Trust me, this IS happening; it is simple economics.

My prediction is therefore that without access policy changes, supercharger access issues will get much worse with Model 3.

That said, it seems to me that Tesla could reduce some of the congestion issues at superchargers by getting a little smarter about how often a car can charge at a given location. This would discourage over-use, but would not necessitate a pay per use fee. This is predicated on the understanding that Tesla does know what vehicles are connecting to a given supercharger. I have read that the vehicle identification number is known to the supercharger, so theoretically it would be possible for Tesla to monitor and limit access by specific VINs at specific locations.

Examples:

- Tesla could limit the frequency of charges at any given station. As an example, they could limit charges at any given station to no more than two, or even one, per week. Road warriors who travel the same lengthy corridor often would be impacted by this, but could get their vin on an exclusion list.

- Tesla could limit supercharging at stations within, say, 25 miles of the vehicle owner address to something like once a week, or maybe even less.

- Smarter still, Tesla could limit access to supercharger stations with x miles (again, maybe 25) of the location where the vehicle most often dwells overnight. That is, if the vehicle spends 5 night a week sitting stationary for 8 hours a night at the same location, then this is probably where the vehicle is being parked, and that in turn is probably close to where the driver is living. And so, access to superchargers within 25 miles of that location would be limited to once a week (as an example). The beauty of algorithmic approaches like this is that they adapt dynamically, and they don't need any intervention to function. So, if the owner moves, or if they travel outside this normal zone, after a short time the algorithm would adapt. Algos like this can also be altered on the fly, making it possible for Tesla to adapt and 'tune' network loading based on usage data.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I would be in favor of a solution like the third one listed above, coupled to a one time lifetime network access charge of perhaps $1000.

 

[ttupper92618]

Now - the idea that I could high-center my car and damage this vital component, but could swap it out and get back on the road...that is a real sweet comforting design. That I could swap a 60 kWh battery for a 90 kWh battery by a few bolts...that is even sweeter. Buy an entry level of car and later have life circumstances where longer range is needed - and to be able to update with an office visit - I like that.

Not to rain on that parade, but Tesla has this far made it utterly impossible to swap to a higher capacity battery pack, even though theoretically it is possible. I don't know why; perhaps the charger or other equipment on the car is specific to the battery type. Regardless, based on everything I have read / seen, this is not allowed.

Also, swapping a damaged battery pack for a new one at a supercharger, I think, is one of the issues that Tesla would have to address, because this represents a significant business cost. If I fry my battery such that it has half capacity, or otherwise damage it... I should not be under the illusion that I can simply roll up into a supercharger station and perform a swap and somehow get a fee battery replacement.

 

[Archer]

Smarter still, Tesla could limit access to supercharger stations with x miles (again, maybe 25) of the location where the vehicle most often dwells overnight. That is, if the vehicle spends 5 night a week sitting stationary for 8 hours a night at the same location, then this is probably where the vehicle is being parked, and that in turn is probably close to where the driver is living. And so, access to superchargers within 25 miles of that location would be limited to once a week (as an example). The beauty of algorithmic approaches like this is that they adapt dynamically, and they don't need any intervention to function. So, if the owner moves, or if they travel outside this normal zone, after a short time the algorithm would adapt. Algos like this can also be altered on the fly, making it possible for Tesla to adapt and 'tune' network loading based on usage data.

People who commute in SoCal can easily require the use of the SC everyday. Your plan does not take into account people who drive long distances for work and I'm not talking about livery workers. There was a user earlier in the thread who thinks it is abuse to even use the SC for commuting purposes. According to him then, the only use for the SC is for personal long distance trips. Sheesh.

Everyone seems to think that the term "local" means close to your home. But Tesla uses that term to define any location where you can charge overnight instead of using a SC. That's what they encourage in that email they sent to owners. That is why they have the destination charger program. Whenever I go road trips I try to stay at hotels with a HPWC. The best use of the SC system is get to you to a location where you can charge overnight.

IMO, the real problem aren't "locals". From my experience, you have owners who stay way longer than necessary. I've seen this at Tejon recently. From Tejon, one needs no more that 160 rated miles to get to the next SC north or south of there, yet there were at least 3 cars already charging for 15 or minutes before a spot opened up for me to charge. And they were still there 30 minutes later when I unplugged. There's really no reason to waste time getting fully charged at a SC unless you are in an area that doesn't have a dense network. But this is CA and I think most people are ignorant of best practices.

 

[ohmman]

I think most people are ignorant of best practices.

You know, a very inexpensive and straightforward thing for Tesla to do would be to post a "best practices" sign at each Supercharger location. Ideally, it would be customized based on the location, but that's a bigger investment of time and energy. A generic sign that discusses pairing, tapering, and courtesy might be a good way to help owners understand their behavior better.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Not to rain on that parade, but Tesla has this far made it utterly impossible to swap to a higher capacity battery pack, even though theoretically it is possible. I don't know why; perhaps the charger or other equipment on the car is specific to the battery type. Regardless, based on everything I have read / seen, this is not allowed.

Also, swapping a damaged battery pack for a new one at a supercharger, I think, is one of the issues that Tesla would have to address, because this represents a significant business cost. If I fry my battery such that it has half capacity, or otherwise damage it... I should not be under the illusion that I can simply roll up into a supercharger station and perform a swap and somehow get a fee battery replacement.

Wellllll - I've asked around and it seems very possible - the boost match and the power system adapts. So, from an engineering aspect - quite doable to swap batteries for either major repair or upgrade. Probably to be done at a service center equipped with lift and spare parts, not at a remote supercharger.
The other part is "may I?" and from what you just said is "not allowed". A different answer than "can't do it". A repair job and a wad of cash may alter that allowable position. Not to say one would choose - but if circumstances demanded......

 

[mfontanilla]

- Smarter still, Tesla could limit access to supercharger stations with x miles (again, maybe 25) of the location where the vehicle most often dwells overnight. That is, if the vehicle spends 5 night a week sitting stationary for 8 hours a night at the same location, then this is probably where the vehicle is being parked, and that in turn is probably close to where the driver is living. And so, access to superchargers within 25 miles of that location would be limited to once a week (as an example). The beauty of algorithmic approaches like this is that they adapt dynamically, and they don't need any intervention to function. So, if the owner moves, or if they travel outside this normal zone, after a short time the algorithm would adapt. Algos like this can also be altered on the fly, making it possible for Tesla to adapt and 'tune' network loading based on usage data.

This makes the most sense as it would allow superchargers to remain free and continued to be used as intended (long-range travel).

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

This makes the most sense as it would allow superchargers to remain free and continued to be used as intended (long-range travel).

I would be even a tad more gracious ----say a vacationer just barley makes it back to town and needs to top off for that last 25 miles. Give him a monthly quota - say twice per month. Then, don't prohibit, but send him a bill for excessive use.

 

[N5329K]

Subsidizing (by providing fee power) electric cars to build the market and bring about a technological sea change seems like a very reasonable thing to do. That's why the tax credits are there. But providing free "fuel" to every Tesla owner forever seems way over the top.
Charge at home and pay (off peak, I hope) accordingly. On the road, pay for what you take. Why should energy be free?
I think that would be in Tesla's best interest, long-term. And once the numbers are out there to justify it, you will see many more charge points spring up, some owned (or franchised) by Tesla, and many not.
Robin

 

[PV1]

Since I haven't seen anyone bring it up, why not find a happy middle ground between pay per use and one-time activation fee with pre-paid monthly subscription? Now, you buy the car without the fee baked in, but you can activate Supercharging whenever you'd like. For example, when one plans to take a cross-country trip, they could purchase a month of Supercharger access and use the network with their 3 like current S/X owners do now. After 30 days, SC gets turned off on that particular car, or the owner could continue to pay a monthly access fee if they desire.

This way, Model 3 owners would be discouraged to pay the monthly fee to charge for "free" when they could easily charge at home for less than the monthly access charge, almost regardless of the home utility rate, but they could still activate their access and use the network as intended when needed. No pay-per-use or pay-per-kWh, but simply a 30-day access grant. Tesla could even offer 1-year free access at the beginning of deliveries, similar to how you get free access to XM radio for 6 months when buying a new car. You still have to pay for continued access after the promo period.

The one-time fee for lifetime access would still be a premium item only available on the S and X. SC access for the 3 would be based on a pre-paid monthly subscription. You know at some point that the month-by-month would end up costing more than the single $2,500 activation for the S/X. meaning that the much larger population of Model 3 cars would continue to fund the SC network's build-out and maintenance.

Does the CHAdeMO adapter require SC activation on the S or X? I think that the CHAdeMO adapter should work regardless of SC activation, but I don't know how it actually is set up. Personally, should I buy a 3, I would like to simply have the CHAdeMO adapter for any local quick charging that I would need without having to pay for SC access, regardless if it is baked in, an add-on, or a monthly subscription. The car already knows if it is at a SC or not.

 

[Az_Rael]

I'll be the iconoclast in this discussion, and argue that I think current supercharger policy is almost guaranteed to foster over-utilization of the supercharger network, and I think it will get greatly worse with model 3. People who live where electricity is cheap cannot understand this, so I will spell it out: in many areas, energy prices per KWh can exceed .30 to .45 KWh. That in turn creates a strong incentive in these areas to abuse the supercharger network, based on nothing more than energy prices. For example, in Southern California where I live, residential prices per KWh can hit .30 on the standard residential plan. So, for owners that don't investigate the options for off-peak billing plans (or for whom they are unavailable), charging their car at home can be equivalent to, or actually cost MORE... than fueling an ICE car (especially recently). That is a strong incentive to never charge at home, but only with 'free' superchargers... because hey, why would I want to pay $25 per charge when I could do it for 'free' at the local supercharger? Trust me, this IS happening; it is simple economics.

This is very true here in CA. Before I got onto a pilot program with SCE, I was paying MORE for electricity to charge my Volt than I was for gas. It was tempting to just not charge the Volt and drive it like a regular ICE vehicle.

If I was still in that situation a driving a Tesla, it might be tempting to swing by the Mojave supercharger on my way home occasionally (I work at Edwards AFB). It is 19 extra miles, though, so pretty far out of my way. However, if they put a supercharger in Palmdale/Lancaster, well then. That would increase the temptation to drive for free. I could see people making that choice.

(No worries, I will charge at home at night. I am now getting an .11 /kWH rate at night on the pilot program)

 

[ikjadoon]

This is very true here in CA. Before I got onto a pilot program with SCE, I was paying MORE for electricity to charge my Volt than I was for gas. It was tempting to just not charge the Volt and drive it like a regular ICE vehicle.

If I was still in that situation a driving a Tesla, it might be tempting to swing by the Mojave supercharger on my way home occasionally (I work at Edwards AFB). It is 19 extra miles, though, so pretty far out of my way. However, if they put a supercharger in Palmdale/Lancaster, well then. That would increase the temptation to drive for free. I could see people making that choice.

(No worries, I will charge at home at night. I am now getting an .11 /kWH rate at night on the pilot program)

Oh, wow, this is a great point. I had no idea; I live deep in coal country, so we're at rock-bottom prices,

HHHmmm....this is a wrinkle. If the cost of owning electric in California is so high, of course people will consider Superchargers....

 

[Drivin]

And they were still there 30 minutes later when I unplugged.

Some people pick up food and go to the bathroom during their visits to superchargers and may either have unexpected have explosive diarrhea so it could take more than 30 minutes.

Maybe the best solution is to stand by your car during charging and not leave until done.

 

[Red Sage]

My prediction is therefore that without access policy changes, supercharger access issues will get much worse with Model 3.

Hmmm... Nonexistent times more vehicles equals... Nonexistent. Rarity multiplied by higher installed user base equals... Hmmm... Still rare. Therefore, not a problem. OK.

Each of your solutions requires constant monitoring and frequent administration. Those can be costly. They are never 'free'. Better to do as Tesla Motors has done -- monitor trends and overall costs, review them periodically.