Same for Virginia, but at a more reasonable $64 a year.
They tried to tack it on to hybrids, but the uproar from the Virginia suburbs of DC was so loud, that they rolled it back in 2014.
Last edited:
-
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
Same for Virginia, but at a more reasonable $64 a year.
They tried to tack it on to hybrids, but the uproar from the Virginia suburbs of DC was so loud, that they rolled it back in 2014.
diamond.g
Active Member
The electricity costs is pretty minimal from what I understand. The main cost driver is actually installing the stations. So unless Tesla overcharges pay per use folks and still books a portion of car sales to build out the network, the light usage that folks talk about wouldn't be enough to pay for more stations.I tend to agree that if you buy Supercharging for life, then it is gonna move these subcribers to use SC heavily. It is primarily a value for money consideration... Lets say hypothetically, one recharge in pay as you go model will be 10USD. For 2000USD, to get "your money back", you need to do minimum 200 recharges. Assuming a range of 200miles, this takes 40.000miles/64.000kms just to break even kind of... And that assumes that 100% of recharging happend via the SC network.
Paying 2000 USD only for long-distance purpose (lets say 10% of all charges), then this fee is a non-sense purely from rational point of view. So if someone pays 2000 USD for the right, it is absolutely natural and common sense that they will try get maximum return on the investement. And nobody can blame anybody.
For me, the more I am thinking about it. Pay As You Go model makes much more sense financially, moreover since only the first SC is opening in Czech Republic in June or so
I think Tesla needs to do a better job talking about destination charging, JB pointed out they have double the number of DestC and no rules on if someone can charge to plug in. Yeah it isn't as fast as SC but any little bit helps.
I am curious to know if Tesla allows third parties to build SC's. If Sheetz put up a SC near their diner side maybe they can get more traffic. Of course the real question becomes can they make folks pay for that usage. And will folks actually pay.
Spot on. In the UK Tesla is dictating that new SuC sites have electricity paid for by the landowners anyway, after all they beneft from the dwell time.
I have also been thinking destination charging becomes more critical. If I have to pay £2k for a bundle with my Model 3 and PAYG is not available i will more likely try to use destination charging, even if at hotels which are more expensive than I would usually stay...or at restaurants I would not normally drop in at. This is because my Model 3 will be local almost all of the time. I might need it to cover for my Model S though and I would need SuCs then...or I will use 3rd party rapid chargers and upset Leaf drivers (of which the Model 3 will replace one in my household).
Ciaopec
Active Member
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
If they tried to get this from hybrid owners they would be run out town on a rail. They denied me the $5000 State tax credit when I bought the car because it had a tail pipe. They can't come back now and charge me an EV tax. Something like having a tax cake and eating it too.
Dan
Garlan Garner
Banned
That's a shame. I wonder if there is ever going to be a time where cars with tailpipes will be taxed for not be an EV.
Garlan Garner
Banned
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Thank you for injecting some sanity back into the discussion.
From all I've heard, the kWh cost isn't really what you're paying for with the larger battery, and definitely not if you have the smallest battery and enable Supercharging.
That money is paying for the infrastructure of the SC network build-out, even more so now that the numbers are going to be doubling in short order.
To me, this is all moot, since I'll be getting the largest battery (and probably at least Performance, if not Ludicrous) anyway.
But people need to let go the pay-per-use notion. IF they even consider temporarily enabling SC access, it will be time-based, to sidestep the regulatory tanglings involved with selling electrons in some states. I can see you logging in and pre-paying for a week, 2 week, or one month period from your vehicle.
But there is absolutely no way they will build out "pay at the pump" (for lack of a better term).
Can you imagine the bedlam that would cause if the system went down and the SC's stopped putting out power? Nope.....not gonna happen.
The cars have robust data storage capability and non-robust communications ability. Much of the technology in the car is already built with this in mind - for example, map data is stored internally versus streamed from the cloud. Another example is that software updates are downloaded in the background, then installed after the download is secure in the car's internal storage.
Billing of charging sessions would also assume non-robust communications: each car would record its charging sessions in its internal storage, then "phone home" at a later time when internet access is re-established.
I don't see any significant technical obstacle to pay-per-use.
More generally, I believe pay-per-use supercharging would accelerate the shift to EV's. Primarily by lowering overall cost of ownership but also by encouraging more efficient use of the supercharger network (increasing SC availability so that becoming an EV-only household is more viable). For these reasons, I expect pay-per-use supercharging to come into play in the future - and the Model 3 timeframe seems like a reasonable time to introduce it.
Insideevs is reporting that Tesla will have 2 Supercharging options for the Model 3: An upfront one time fee for access, or single use fees for those who don't use them much.
Speculation is over. Those insisting all Model 3's will have free Supercharging for life <RedSage>, can now move on to their next prognostication. How Elon couldn't have listened to the smart guys around here has me somewhat baffled.
RT
Speculation is over. Those insisting all Model 3's will have free Supercharging for life <RedSage>, can now move on to their next prognostication. How Elon couldn't have listened to the smart guys around here has me somewhat baffled.
RT
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
While that is a little more believable than some of the other things I've seen posted, it's not coming from Elon, or the Tesla page, or a press release.....
So, let's not be holding up our "Dewey Defeats Truman" newspapers just yet.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
My fear is that they attempt to put the processing of payments/access on the SC's themselves. Some of them are pretty remote, and may or may not have reliable "phone home" connectivity.
If they keep it the way it is now, i.e. the token for handshaking with the SC is stored within each vehicle's software, then it won't be a disaster.
But if you're relying on people swiping credit cards at Superchargers, that's "game over". Too many potential points of failure.
While that is a little more believable than some of the other things I've seen posted, it's not coming from Elon, or the Tesla page, or a press release.....
So, let's not be holding up our "Dewey Defeats Truman" newspapers just yet.
It's Bloomberg directly quoting Elon.
Musk defeats Truman!
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
I put this up over on the Model 3 Owners Site in response to a post about pay-per-use being what he felt Elon had for sure said in the shareholders meeting. I guess it fits here too. Might as well get abuse from this bunch as well.
A couple of things...
First, by "decoupling" Supercharging from the price of the car, I read that as no longer embedding the price of Supercharging into the price the consumer pays for the car. Make it an option, as he said could be purchased with a "package".
Second, and this is definitely not going to be popular, here is why I think pay-per-use is a bad idea. I think it would be too convenient.
Hear me out before you start throwing things at me through your computer screen. Both Elon and JB said in the meeting that a priority for them is to break the habit that we have of seeing the gas station model as the best model. We drive until we need more gas then we stop at one of a billion gas stations and get what we need. They put it as Tesla owners not valuing their own time. Trying to use Superchargers as we currently use gas stations. Their argument is that we need to start viewing our homes as the best, most efficient method of charging our cars. By implementing a pay-per-use model, we are just encouraging a thought process that Elon and JB are trying to break. If you are going to need it...buy it. If not, then plan on limiting your use of the vehicle to that which you can charge at home. It breaks the mindless thought process of how we have done things for years and encourages people to think much more in depth about how they intend to use their vehicle and what its use is worth in the way of cost.
Now, don't break your screen trying to jump through it to wrap your hands around my throat! Those damn things are expensive!
Just my 2 cents.
Dan
A couple of things...
First, by "decoupling" Supercharging from the price of the car, I read that as no longer embedding the price of Supercharging into the price the consumer pays for the car. Make it an option, as he said could be purchased with a "package".
Second, and this is definitely not going to be popular, here is why I think pay-per-use is a bad idea. I think it would be too convenient.
Hear me out before you start throwing things at me through your computer screen. Both Elon and JB said in the meeting that a priority for them is to break the habit that we have of seeing the gas station model as the best model. We drive until we need more gas then we stop at one of a billion gas stations and get what we need. They put it as Tesla owners not valuing their own time. Trying to use Superchargers as we currently use gas stations. Their argument is that we need to start viewing our homes as the best, most efficient method of charging our cars. By implementing a pay-per-use model, we are just encouraging a thought process that Elon and JB are trying to break. If you are going to need it...buy it. If not, then plan on limiting your use of the vehicle to that which you can charge at home. It breaks the mindless thought process of how we have done things for years and encourages people to think much more in depth about how they intend to use their vehicle and what its use is worth in the way of cost.
Now, don't break your screen trying to jump through it to wrap your hands around my throat! Those damn things are expensive!
Just my 2 cents.
Dan
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
link or it doesn't count.
If you're trying to be iron-clad and declare victory, maybe be a little more transparent.
Your post says insideevs....nothing about Bloomberg. Seeing is believing.
graphic
Member
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
As I consider the options, I first thought of a subscription model, where I buy a months access to SC during a planned vacation. Then I look at the prepay for two weeks. Both have the same flaw - what if my plans change and I don't travel as much as I prepaid? Does my coupon book expire worthless? I have not been comfortable with the pay-at-the-pump plan mostly due to logistics. But the idea of having "credits" onboard that get updated on a regular basis makes this avenue much more palatable. No reason to have credits expire, just put it on my bill. Yeah, I can get behind that. I could also see buying a lifetime subscription - if/when my travel shifted from local to long distance. Buy it when needed, and not in advance.Thank you for injecting some sanity back into the discussion.
From all I've heard, the kWh cost isn't really what you're paying for with the larger battery, and definitely not if you have the smallest battery and enable Supercharging.
That money is paying for the infrastructure of the SC network build-out, even more so now that the numbers are going to be doubling in short order.
To me, this is all moot, since I'll be getting the largest battery (and probably at least Performance, if not Ludicrous) anyway.
But people need to let go the pay-per-use notion. IF they even consider temporarily enabling SC access, it will be time-based, to sidestep the regulatory tanglings involved with selling electrons in some states. I can see you logging in and pre-paying for a week, 2 week, or one month period from your vehicle.
But there is absolutely no way they will build out "pay at the pump" (for lack of a better term).
Can you imagine the bedlam that would cause if the system went down and the SC's stopped putting out power? Nope.....not gonna happen.
I put this up over on the Model 3 Owners Site in response to a post about pay-per-use being what he felt Elon had for sure said in the shareholders meeting. I guess it fits here too. Might as well get abuse from this bunch as well.
A couple of things...
First, by "decoupling" Supercharging from the price of the car, I read that as no longer embedding the price of Supercharging into the price the consumer pays for the car. Make it an option, as he said could be purchased with a "package".
Second, and this is definitely not going to be popular, here is why I think pay-per-use is a bad idea. I think it would be too convenient.
Hear me out before you start throwing things at me through your computer screen. Both Elon and JB said in the meeting that a priority for them is to break the habit that we have of seeing the gas station model as the best model. We drive until we need more gas then we stop at one of a billion gas stations and get what we need. They put it as Tesla owners not valuing their own time. Trying to use Superchargers as we currently use gas stations. Their argument is that we need to start viewing our homes as the best, most efficient method of charging our cars. By implementing a pay-per-use model, we are just encouraging a thought process that Elon and JB are trying to break. If you are going to need it...buy it. If not, then plan on limiting your use of the vehicle to that which you can charge at home. It breaks the mindless thought process of how we have done things for years and encourages people to think much more in depth about how they intend to use their vehicle and what its use is worth in the way of cost.
Now, don't break your screen trying to jump through it to wrap your hands around my throat! Those damn things are expensive!
Just my 2 cents.
Dan
Tesla will simply programmatically enforce no local supercharging for model 3 users who violate the terms of service.
This is a non-issue. They would almost certainly do something like ChargePoint does -- if the network goes down they continue to allow cars to charge and just store the transactions locally on the charger hardware until the network connection is restored.
The worst case is that a few cars with inactive accounts end up charging for free occasionally but this is just a cost of doing business.
Actually, Musk made that argument in the context of free or pre-paid and unlimited charging access where people were driving to local Superchargers to avoid the cost of charging at home.
Introducing some form of per-use payment would discourage the behavior that Musk was criticizing.
Last edited:
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Hadn't really thought of that, but definitely valid.
Maybe it can be like a "CharlieCard" (subway card for Boston's system), you're charged per ride when you swipe. The value is stored, so you don't lose it if you fail to use it withing 7/14/30/90/etc days.
Similar threads
