Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

[ModelNforNerd]

This, only keep the time based fee running until you disconnect, not just until the electrons stop flowing. You would be paying for a parking spot, not the electricity itself. It will also give owners an extra incentive to move their cars as soon as they are done charging instead of tying up supercharger spots for longer than necessary.

Teslas are smart vehicles that already talk to SC's.

It will know how much time you need to top off. If you're a "pay-per-use" customer, maybe they can limit you to 80% SoC, aka the "fast" part of Sc'ing, that way, you're not taking up the extra 30-40 minutes it might take to get to 100%.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

One problem with supercharger "gas stations" is that the current batteries are not designed to tolerate supercharging as the primary charging method.

**shrug** that's the owners' problem.

they're already abusing SC use in some places.

Maybe Tesla needs to add that language into the battery warranty, and keep that usage data per vehicle stored somewhere.

If you use it in a way it's not intended to be used, you should bear the cost of fixing or replacing the battery.


the intention of supercharging "gas stations" is more about coverage than anything.

 

[electracity]

I didn't say the market forces Tesla to do anything. I said Tesla should take advantage of a market-based system to encourage better overall behavior rather than being forced into dictating blanket policies.

Upfront fee is a market based solution. You seem to think that Tesla is a government entity making policy.

 

[MP3Mike]

If they do have a pay-per-use plan it will be more expensive than people think/want since it needs to cover infrastructure build/maintenance as well as electrical usage.

Let's say that an average Model 3 owner takes 2 trips per year, and hits 10 Superchargers on each trip and never uses a Supercharger for anything else. (5 out and 5 back) Assuming the car falls apart at the end of the 8-year powertrain warranty, at $2,000 it cost them $12.50 for each Supercharge. (In all likelihood most people will use them more often than that.) If you assume an average of 150 miles/charge it costs $0.083/mile.

Now he said it would cost less than an ICE, so if we look at the Audi A4, which gets 28 MPG combined, and figure gas will cost $3/gallon it would cost $0.107/mile. (not counting oil changes, etc.)

Put that all together and my guess is that it will cost $19.99 per Supercharge. The problem with that is I think it would make things worse. Since they are paying $19.99/charge they are likely to charge to 100% every time to get the most value. (Well not if you count the cost of their time.) So you may see pay-per-use people staying way longer than necessary.

Alternatively they could charge ~$0.66/min, which gets rid of the problem of staying longer to get your value, and would encourage people to come in with an empty battery where they can get more power for the same cost. Of course I think they would need to round it up, to $0.75 or even $1/min. (Really they want the $2,000 up front so they can build out the network, so they have to make it very attractive.)

The problem with the per minute charge is that it makes it less attractive to prospective land owners and may make siting new Superchargers harder. (Since people would probably just stay in their car so that they could leave again ASAP to not pay too much. People aren't going to eat a leisurely meal, or go shopping, at $40-60/hour.)

Note: We know from history that most people opt for the bigger battery, and that the bigger battery is likely to come with Supercharging as part of the package. So most Model 3s will have "free" Supercharging anyhow.

 

[electracity]

If they do have a pay-per-use plan it will be more expensive than people think/want since it needs to cover infrastructure build/maintenance as well as electrical usage.

This is one reason they will probably use fixed fee. Pay per use will provide ammunition to critics to "prove" how electric cars don't save money.

 

[Red Sage]

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 look at it this way... $2,000 would buy around 667 gallons here in Los Angeles at about $3.00 per gallon. At 40 MPG, that would take me just shy of 27,000 miles. I really like to drive -- a lot. At 36,000 miles per year, that amount of money would cover about nine months of driving for me. The idea of having to prepay for nine months worth of gasoline, but then having 'free' access for years afterward is incredibly appealing to me. Even more so when I consider that in actuality, I expect the option to cost much less for Model ☰ buyers, at $1,000 and possibly as low as $500 for 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' access to Superchargers. Sold.

Some live in places where gasoline is 'cheap' and electricity is relatively expensive. Here, it is extremely expensive for one, and oppressively expensive for the other. Perhaps the economics work differently for people who live elsewhere.

 

[electracity]

**shrug** that's the owners' problem.

No, it is Tesla's warranty problem. As Musk said, the packs are designed for the equivalent of one cycle per week.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

No, it is Tesla's warranty problem. As Musk said, the packs are designed for the equivalent of one cycle per week.

\

If you're going to quote me, please don't cherry pick it to prove your point, when, had you read 2 lines further, I actually validated what you said.

Maybe Tesla needs to add that language into the battery warranty, and keep that usage data per vehicle stored somewhere.

If you use it in a way it's not intended to be used, you should bear the cost of fixing or replacing the battery.

 

[Red Sage]

I think, and maybe within the next 3-5 years, gas stations are going to reach a tipping point.

I expect someone to sign on with Tesla, and supplement the SC network, and try to bring EV drivers back "into the fold".

We'll get rewards programs (car washes and convenience store discounts when we plug in), and they will have access to the demographic they are about to lose in droves:

People who can afford $35,000+ vehicles who travel on road trips.

I see it as a win-win-win.

We win, because SC coverage would expand exponentially, depending on who the partner is.

We'd all win again, because this would help alleviate congestion and local abuse.

Tesla would win, because they'd have a partner to shoulder some of the costs, as well as maintenance of the build-out.

And the partner would win, because on long road trips, I'd have somewhere to use the restroom, buy an iced coffee for myself and some iced tea for my wife.

Prime Example: Greenwich, CT SC's on Rt 15. If they could build out based on that model on a grand scale, this entire conversation thread could be shut down.

As good an idea as such proposals are, for partnering with gas station or truck stop chains, I really don't want to see it happen. I'd rather Tesla Motors had their own sites on major highways, spaced perhaps 450 to 600 miles apart. Tesla Waypoint -- with 12-to-16 Superchargers, a lounge, and lavatory, possibly with a convenience store. Tesla Depot -- with Tesla Store, Service Center, Convenience Store, Food Court, Lounge, Lavatory, 24-to-36 Superchargers, Battery Swap/Car Wash if feasible, and J1772, CHAdeMO, and CCS chargers in regular parking spaces to service EVs from other companies. No alcohol or tobacco sales, of course.

 

[Red Sage]

Yes, I won't be surprised if Tesla ends up installing at some troublesome locations a few stalls that won't work with pre-paid plans and always require "per-use" pricing in order to simulate your two-gas-station example.

I would actually be very surprised if that happens, even though some current Tesla owners might demand such 'exclusive' or 'premier' service to guarantee a reserved Supercharger space.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

As good an idea as such proposals are, for partnering with gas station or truck stop chains, I really don't want to see it happen. I'd rather Tesla Motors had their own sites on major highways, spaced perhaps 450 to 600 miles apart. Tesla Waypoint -- with 12-to-16 Superchargers, a lounge, and lavatory, possibly with a convenience store. Tesla Depot -- with Tesla Store, Service Center, Convenience Store, Food Court, Lounge, Lavatory, 24-to-36 Superchargers, Battery Swap/Car Wash if feasible, and J1772, CHAdeMO, and CCS chargers in regular parking spaces to service EVs from other companies. No alcohol or tobacco sales, of course.

That's a huge capital outlay, major overhead, various levels of permitting/licensing, etc.....

It's a great 5-10 year vision, but I think partnering with someone with existing real estate and supply networks is the way to go to stand this up in the next 18-36 months, when the Model 3's will begin to pop up everywhere.

 

[electracity]

I actually validated what you said.

No, you didn't. The last thing Tesla wants to do is to introduce language suggesting supercharging is harmful.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

No, you didn't. The last thing Tesla wants to do is to introduce language suggesting supercharging is harmful.

Now you're "lawyering".

 

[Brunel]

I look at it this way... $2,000 would buy around 667 gallons here in Los Angeles at about $3.00 per gallon. At 40 MPG, that would take me just shy of 27,000 miles. I really like to drive -- a lot. At 36,000 miles per year, that amount of money would cover about nine months of driving for me. The idea of having to prepay for nine months worth of gasoline, but then having 'free' access for years afterward is incredibly appealing to me. Even more so when I consider that in actuality, I expect the option to cost much less for Model ☰ buyers, at $1,000 and possibly as low as $500 for 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' access to Superchargers. Sold.

I presume you will have no domestic charging facilities, but most people will expect to charge at home and not fill their boots with pre-paid electricity. If they look at it with your perspective then we will have an "abuse" problem. My local SuC is 3 miles away, electricity is expensive in UK, the SuC is at a shopping mall; thus convenient if I wanted food or general shopping, but as a rational person I do not fill my boots with my "free" electricity and I charge at home (admittedly from free solar when it actually comes out here)! Actually I did use it for 10 mins yesterday as I was in single % left on return leg of a journey and I stayed in the car in case someone on a roadtrip turned up and I could have stopped altogether or given them priority at least.

 

[zambono]

I am not sure if anyone mentioned but Elon said they can get the unlimited package, but to me that implies other packages. Tesla can't charge for electricity, they are not a utility and don't want to be but they can sell an autopilot unlock for a week, or for a month etc. So imagine $2k unlimited forever, $200 for a month, $100 for a week etc. This would drive revenue and limit the amount of users.

 

[Red Sage]

When Tesla first started, they should have used a pay-per-use model but still make SC capability as an upgrade. IMO, SC should have never been "free". The cost of the electricity is low and they could have always charged a nominal $6/20 minutes charge. (I picked $6 since it works out to about 10 cents/kwh for charging a 85/90kwh pack to 80%) I think it is only fair that we "contribute" to the SC network build out as I view it as an enabling capability and not the cost of electricity. Just like in most cars, I would pay $500 to get an XM radio installed but I do not expect to get free radio program for free forever, I bet you that some of the local SC frequent users is trying to get their $2000 worth of electricity since in their mind, they already paid for it (and not the SC network..)

I love that Tesla Motors had the good sense to separate their vehicles from the paradigm of ICE by offering Superchargers that were 'FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!' It makes perfect sense to me from a marketing standpoint and hits the very core of my personal angst against ICE. Because while I love to drive, I have always hated having to buy gasoline as fuel, and despised having to get oil changed every 3,000 miles. Having only a car payment and insurance as regular out-of-pocket expenses is very liberating -- even if you primarily charge the car at home or at work.

Tesla Motors decided that for Generation II cars, the contribution they could accept was simply that you bought the car. At the beginning, if you got a 60 kWh capacity battery pack, you had the option to pay for DC charging hardware, and that would grant you access to the Supercharger network. If you got the 85 kWh capacity battery pack, the DC charging hardware was included by default, along with access to the Supercharger network. Since then, the 60 kWh version has gone away, and the 70 kWh, 75 kWh, and 90 kWh versions have all included Supercharger access by default -- for the life of the car.

The thing with XM or Sirius is that those are external entities to the automobile manufacturer. Just as HULU, Amazon, and Netflix are separate from the manufacturer of your computer. You pay for their services separately as a subscription, for as long as you want to use them, and that's fine. You paid for gasoline or diesel, to entities such as BP, Exxon/Mobil, or SHELL, because they were (supposedly) separate entities from the automobile manufacturer. But Superchargers are not separate from Tesla Motors, neither should they be. So it is fine that the access fee for a feature be either included in the price of the product, or an optional charge that you can accept or decline. And really, charging your Customers a subscription fee to actually be able to use your product the way you promoted it could be used seems rather petty at best, and downright evil at worst. Now that I think of it, that is probably one of the things that bothered me so much about iTunes and all the i$#!+ devices, though I actually like the Macintosh.

 

[gregincal]

If they do have a pay-per-use plan it will be more expensive than people think/want since it needs to cover infrastructure build/maintenance as well as electrical usage.

Why? There is zero reason why that would be true. Supercharger construction comes out of a marketing fund that is not tied to any income whatsoever.

 

[Red Sage]

I presume you will have no domestic charging facilities, but most people will expect to charge at home and not fill their boots with pre-paid electricity. If they look at it with your perspective then we will have an "abuse" problem. My local SuC is 3 miles away, electricity is expensive in UK, the SuC is at a shopping mall; thus convenient if I wanted food or general shopping, but as a rational person I do not fill my boots with my "free" electricity and I charge at home (admittedly from free solar when it actually comes out here)! Actually I did use it for 10 mins yesterday as I was in single % left on return leg of a journey and I stayed in the car in case someone on a roadtrip turned up and I could have stopped altogether or given them priority at least.

Meh. After I posted, I thought someone might reply like this... And here it is. Surprise!

Lookit, the way I see it, using the Superchargers is NOT abuse. Going to a Supercharger stall and using it as a personal parking space for hours on end is abuse. Going to a Supercharger and not plugging in at all is abuse. Going to a Supercharger and being discourteous to other owners is abuse. Going to a 'local' Supercharger with regularity -- when you have ready access to home charging instead -- is abuse.

Personally, I would not want to have an electric car without having the wondrous benefit of home charging. The notion of waking up to a 'Full Tank' every morning is rather uplifting. But knowing that every Friday after work, I can just pick a direction and GO is truly inspiring. That is what I meant by my prior post. For me, Supercharger access would grant freedom to drive on the open road, not for ordinary everyday commuting about town.

And ultimately, for those who choose to buy electric, but don't have home charging, there is no shame there either. They should be applauded for making a tough, but correct, decision. You bought the car. Use the Superchargers whenever you want, as often as you like, wherever you are. Just please, pretty please, with sugar on top, be nice about it.

 

[MP3Mike]

Why? There is zero reason why that would be true. Supercharger construction comes out of a marketing fund that is not tied to any income whatsoever.

Wow really? Can I get my mortgage paid out of my "marketing fund" that isn't tied to any income?

I guarantee you that part of every car purchase is earmarked to "marketing" and part of that "marketing" is earmarked to Superchargers. So therefore the Supercharger network build out is tied to car purchases. If as Elon says they are decoupling the Supercharger network from the base purchase I assume that means that the "marketing" earmark is being reduced.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Wow really? Can I get my mortgage paid out of my "marketing fund" that isn't tied to any income?

I guarantee you that part of every car purchase is earmarked to "marketing" and part of that "marketing" is earmarked to Superchargers. So therefore the Supercharger network build out is tied to car purchases. If as Elon says they are decoupling the Supercharger network from the base purchase I assume that means that the "marketing" earmarked is being reduced.

I took the "decoupling" remark the same way.

Remember: everyone keeps wondering where they're going to make cuts to get a $35,000 version of the car out the door that won't sink the company.

"Decoupling" supercharger access from that price gets them a lot closer to that number, rather than cutting corners in build quality or materials.