Maybe they can charge to park and not for power
Sometimes I saw cars parked without charging because they already finished and the owner is still at the stores
-
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
Sometimes I saw cars parked without charging because they already finished and the owner is still at the stores
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
I just read the Annual Report/10Q...(slept a bit during page turning excitement) and there is a bunch of "official" discussion of the charging network. I'll try to summarize my take --- a charging network is VITAL to the acceptance of electric cars. The Tesla cars are designed to accept essentially every charging system available world wide. There is a vested interest in making sure the resistance to selling EV are addressed - not just for Tesla, but for the entire industry. (lots of other good points, but I'll let you read/snooze)
So, my take is that Tesla will do nothing to upset the business model in a way that interferes with the charging system. The fee- for- use may make some short term financial sense, but conflicts with the big picture deployment of an electrified transportation network.
Awhile back, I read a philosophy of Warren Buffet - he always lets the CEO of companies he buys into to run the company their way. He always votes in accordance with the Boards proxies. One can have nit-pick differences, but always, always give support.
I feel this way about Tesla. Buy the stock, buy the product, vote the proxy.
So, my take is that Tesla will do nothing to upset the business model in a way that interferes with the charging system. The fee- for- use may make some short term financial sense, but conflicts with the big picture deployment of an electrified transportation network.
Awhile back, I read a philosophy of Warren Buffet - he always lets the CEO of companies he buys into to run the company their way. He always votes in accordance with the Boards proxies. One can have nit-pick differences, but always, always give support.
I feel this way about Tesla. Buy the stock, buy the product, vote the proxy.
I agree that a charging network is vital to the acceptance of electric cars. I think everyone agrees to that.
But to serve this end, a charging network doesn't need to only exist - it needs to be available. Those who advocate a nominal fee-for-use not only recognize the need for availability, but they believe fee-for-use will provide the appropriate (dis)incentives to preserve (and hopefully improve!) availability.
But to serve this end, a charging network doesn't need to only exist - it needs to be available. Those who advocate a nominal fee-for-use not only recognize the need for availability, but they believe fee-for-use will provide the appropriate (dis)incentives to preserve (and hopefully improve!) availability.
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
Perhaps the distinction - destination, public, home, Super charging is getting lost. What is vital is widespread. What is not is who owns it and how is it paid for. Getting a SC network is an important piece of the puzzle. Once there are "sufficient" that the EV industry has established no range anxiety - then that job is done. There will be 10,000+ destination charges, and 500,000 home chargers every year. The 1,500 +/- SC network will be important, and a benefit to those who bought into the program, but no longer the dominant discussion. Maybe Tesla will sell off the chargers to a new company to sell power/maintain/expand the franchise. years from now.
ttupper92618
Member
You need to remember that destination chargers mean exactly what the name implies - a charging facility available at your destination. That means not publicly. You can verify this yourself just by heading to Tesla.com and actually looking at the destination chargers near you. In my area, the vast majority of them are at hotels, and are only available to guests.
For all intents and purposes, destination chargers add significantly less value to the charging infrastructure than do superchargers.
For all intents and purposes, destination chargers add significantly less value to the charging infrastructure than do superchargers.
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
Ahh - were are into semantics....Being able to move my car anywhere and not be afraid of being stranded (range anxiety) is diminished for travelers, shoppers, vacationers by having chargers at Destinations and SC. Both contribute to the range anxiety reduction, so both add value. And, I believe both are presented to be "free".
I would probably buy something at a mall that lets me refill. I would be buying a room if I was refilling at a hotel. So "free" is just not a direct charge(fee). I would be buying something from Tesla in order to use the SC. I would NOT be buying anything if the charging network did not exist.
I would probably buy something at a mall that lets me refill. I would be buying a room if I was refilling at a hotel. So "free" is just not a direct charge(fee). I would be buying something from Tesla in order to use the SC. I would NOT be buying anything if the charging network did not exist.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The destination charger network is easier to maintain because the location owner pays for all electricity and maintenance. Tesla only donates the charger and a set amount per charger for installation.
The superchargers have ongoing costs Tesla has to pay for (with a few locations that are exceptions).
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
OK - so both charger systems contribute to range anxiety reduction - a vital component to an emerging industry. One I pay for in the prices of mall goods, the other in the price I pay via Tesla-SC - but both cost and provide value for that cost.
ttupper92618
Member
It's not semantics - you are trivializing.
If I drive my car to an area where there are 15 destination chargers, and only 2 or 3 of them are at any publicly accessible space, then they don't have a material effect on helping me have a place to charge my car. You may be interested to know that nation-wide, the majority of destination chargers are at hotels. So unless you are actually staying at one of them, then no, they don't materially contribute to soothing range anxiety because you cannot use them.
As an example, consider this: I live in the LA area, so suppose I decided to drive down to San Diego for a day trip. San Diego is my destination. Now, guess how many of the destination chargers in San Diego are at hotels? All but one. So on my day trip to my destination, just how many charging stations do I have access to besides the supercharger? ONE. ONE destination charger in the entirety of the San Diego metropolitan area is available to me on my day trip down there.
How exactly does that help reduce my 'range anxiety'?
Destination chargers are easy for Tesla and the numbers look impressive, but they do NOT help owners to the degree that those numbers would suggest.
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
Gee - I might buy lunch at a hotel if they let me fill. Just gotta ask.
Not sure what your argument is. More chargers don't help the industry? Only "free" SC help range anxiety? The charger network is frozen at the current level and not going to improve? wheres-da-beef?
Not sure what your argument is. More chargers don't help the industry? Only "free" SC help range anxiety? The charger network is frozen at the current level and not going to improve? wheres-da-beef?
ttupper92618
Member
Only available chargers help. If I drive somewhere, and the only destination chargers are not available to me, then they might as well not exist. Public infrastructure is what will be needed. Accordingly, you are massively over-estimating the impact of the destination chargers and massively underestimating the public infrastructure need. Tesla is going to have to expand the SC network much more than currently planned in order to establish enough infrastructure to support the cars they intend to build. That's my point.
diamond.g
Active Member
That is discounting the 3rd party charging solutions entirely though. Isn't that kind of unrealistic? After all, once Tesla turns to Pay-Go why shouldn't other EV's be offered the chance to use HPWC and SC's? And if they do offer Pay-Go, and allow non-Tesla EV's, then the others Blink/NRG etc, will have to improve their rates or risk losing business.
Of course once that happens, then the next question people may ask is why get a Tesla Model 3 at all? Why not get a Bolt and just use the Tesla charging network? The Model 3 owner has to pay for it anyways, may as well get the cheaper/more reliable car... [totally devils advocate here]
ttupper92618
Member
Actually I agree that it is likely that private enterprise will seek to fill the gap. But I think there are issues to be worked out that relate to the 'big picture' that some people keep alluding to in this thread. To whit: to offset the time requirements that are put in place for charging an electric vehicle, there have to be other competing factors which compensate. Tesla's example is that, though yeah, it could take an hour to charge you to full capacity... but it won't cost you a dime. Free compensates for time.
Right now, any private company building a charger network has to charge quite a bit more per kWh than does the local utility, because obviously they have to be able to turn a profit and they have infrastructure costs and overhead to compensate for. The result is that these charging stations are often pretty expensive (.45 or more per kWh). That is, of course, not a compelling big picture story for EV's. So, while I agree that this could be helpful, I think there are still issues to get ironed out. What would be great is if these networks could arrange for discount energy prices from utilities, use solar, etc.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It depends on what type of pay-per-use they do. If they do a hybrid method where charger installation continues to be funded by advertising/cost of sales (most likely), then the only non-Tesla's allowed would be those that cooperate with Tesla and also provide funding to build chargers. However, although Tesla has offered similar to manufacturers (under today's "free" method), none of them have taken up that offer.
If Tesla does a "pure" pay-per-use (where no infrastructure costs are funded by car sales), the rates will be significantly higher (or there may need to be monthly fees).
EcoHeliGuy
Member
The destination chargers offload a lot of supercharger traffic. If you leave home go to your destination and then return you'll spend more time using the superchargers. If you can leave the destination fully charged your less of an impact on the superchargers.
diamond.g
Active Member
To me it comes down to folks looking at how Tesla is doing the charging versus others (which isn't entirely true Nissan has deals to offer free charging for Leafs) and flocks towards free. Which when switching from gas/diesel is a powerful proposition. One that I think is quite unrealistic, especially when people are going to game the system to 'get what they paid for'. Folks who currently have Tesla's see having to pay as a huge setback one which would appear to stunt the growth of the EV market. I am not sure that is the case.
wraithnot
Model 3 VIN #2942 Model S VIN #5785
While most of the destination chargers on the Teslamotors.com webpage state that they are "available for patrons only", looking on plugshare and/or calling the hotel may yield a different response. We were driving through Mariposa and Oakhurst this weekend and it was looking like it would be hard to make it to the Fresno supercharger so we looked on plugshare for our options and found that the Best Western in Oakhurst was "$5. Free for guests." despite the info on teslamotors.com. And sure enough, I walked up to the front desk, said that I wanted to use the charger, handed them a $5 bill, and then plugged the car in. I was VERY glad Tesla installed that particular charger.
The Groveland hotel is also listed on plugshare as "$5.00 flat fee, free to hotel guests". And the Best Western Socorro, New Mexico is listed on plugshare as "$5 / two hours of charging, honor based". Many other hotels are simply listed as "available to the public" (e.g. Embassy Suites in Tucson, Arizona).
A Tesla HPWC connector at a hotel where you don't plan to spend the night is certainly not as useful a Supercharger. But with little research and perhaps a dash of persuasion it can still be pretty useful.
Steepler2k
Member
The public (read: government) will have to buy into the charging infrastructure at some point. This seems like an ideal set-up to partner with the local power utility to arrange publicly available charging stations throughout their area. Charging per kWh would work out quite fine, given that it's the utility doing the charging. If the capital cost is split between the government (seeking to make EVs worthwhile to their citizens as well as making their city an inviting destination for tourists) and the utility (who could recoup their costs via equal or slightly higher rates than what they offer residential customers) you can avoid the difficulty that third party attempts currently encounter, namely that they have to charge rates far in excess of the actual cost of power in order to recoup their capital cost.
Tesla cannot be the sole solution to the issues of charging infrastructure unless other manufacturers are going to buy into the network. If the cost is borne entirely by Tesla and it's customers, it's just not going to be feasible, unless their next growth goal is to be a manufacturer of energy beyond supplementing the power supplied to their gigafactory(s). At some point, the government (of the people) will have to prioritize the availability of EV charging because we care about the future of our planet for our children and be heavily involved in making this more practical than it currently is. This coming from a staunch libertarian that dislikes government involvement in most things.
Tesla cannot be the sole solution to the issues of charging infrastructure unless other manufacturers are going to buy into the network. If the cost is borne entirely by Tesla and it's customers, it's just not going to be feasible, unless their next growth goal is to be a manufacturer of energy beyond supplementing the power supplied to their gigafactory(s). At some point, the government (of the people) will have to prioritize the availability of EV charging because we care about the future of our planet for our children and be heavily involved in making this more practical than it currently is. This coming from a staunch libertarian that dislikes government involvement in most things.
Steepler2k
Member
I suspect there's a lack of demand. I live in the largest city in Alabama and I've seen maybe 5 Teslas here. Rarely see a Leaf, occasionally a Volt. I've heard of the BMW dealer selling a few of their new PHEVs. There are no Tesla stores or service centers in the entire state. That, plus round the clock energy being roughly average makes me think demand just isn't there.
Of course, I could be wrong. They could very well have the plan and not advertise it. I played around on the website after placing my model 3 reservation and I couldn't find any mention of a variable billing based on time of day. Timing is so far away for me that there's not really much point in picking up the phone to see if it's something that's available only if asked.
I would hope that with enough EVs on the road, someone will eventually figure out a business model to serve them just like gas stations did back in the day. Gas stations don't make their money on the gas, they make it on the convenience store and people coming in to get coffee, snacks, etc.
I could see a company putting up travel stops along the major highways for EV charging. They might charge a small premium for the electricity over local utility rates (some laws would have to change I would imagine), but then make money on everything else. There could be a restaurant, paid high speed wifi, a nice lounge with a coffee bar, kids playground, etc.
Maybe someone could start by partering with Flying J or Loves, and as the volume increases open their own EV only spots. "EZ Ed's Fast EV Charging" or something like that.
I could see a company putting up travel stops along the major highways for EV charging. They might charge a small premium for the electricity over local utility rates (some laws would have to change I would imagine), but then make money on everything else. There could be a restaurant, paid high speed wifi, a nice lounge with a coffee bar, kids playground, etc.
Maybe someone could start by partering with Flying J or Loves, and as the volume increases open their own EV only spots. "EZ Ed's Fast EV Charging" or something like that.
Similar threads
