Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model 3 Supercharging Capable Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The many problems discussed with free or even yearly/annual programs could be mitigated by building in a financial incentive to use SC less. A copay or max uses per year or other method which costs less if you don't use it. Cross country trips are a problem. This could be lessened by excluding or reducing charges at SC more than 100 or X miles from home. Not saying I have the solution but there are a lot of bright members that probably could design a workable method that financially rewards using less. Pay per use is the only simple method I came up with.
The point is to encourage EV adoption. Not to discourage it. Traditional automobile manufacturers have been very good at discouraging any consideration of electric vehicles by offering short range, ugly, slow cars that commanded a 100% premium over similar cars. I'm glad Tesla Motors does things a different way. Use of a resource is not 'abuse'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garsh and jkk_
I have noted previously that I believe it is unfair that EPA ratings for Wh per mile include induction losses during charging. I think that effectively means they are saying you are spilling electrons on the floor while charging. Even with that caveat, I still include those estimates from time-to-time, as a 15% penalty. I don't like doing that, but I will do so on occasion. Most of the time, I will not. No one presumes that gasoline or diesel is being wasted on the floor while filling an ICE. Instead, they judge the range and efficiency of the vehicles based upon the fuel that is in the tank. Many of the calculations and comparative results on a Monroney sticker are financial in nature. I care more about actual results of use.

I think the reason for this is that all of the losses/expenses are included in the price of getting a gallon of gas in your car. i.e. you pay for a gallon you get a gallon of usable gas. In an EV you pay for a kWh but you only get ~0.85 kWh of usable energy stored in your car. So including the losses for the cost of driving does make sense. In fact you are using/paying for that extra 15%, it just isn't stored in the car.

And you aren't "spilling electrons on the floor" you are likely heating the air around your car and wiring.

Maybe they need two numbers total Wh needed per mile, and Wh per mile from the battery.
 
The concept has, the execution is still in the future. 99% of the current superchargers have no solar panels or battery backup. Just peruse the supercharger construction threads and see more coming on line every week with no canopies and an empty hole where the battery backup would go.

I'm sure they'll add those as the gigafactory comes on line but you make it sound like they did it in the past not they still need to do it in the future.
As long as it has been proven to work, my point is made. Tesla Motors went from expecting to sell maybe 15,000 units of the Model S worldwide to selling twice that many in 2014, and over three times that amount in 2015. They expect to reach four times that rate in 2016. Their Supercharger network had to expand more quickly as a result. And that express level of expansion meant that fewer of the facilities could be fully outfitted with canopies and battery backup. They needed to spend money on density and distance more so than delivering full fledged facilities. It is just another of the beneficial penalties of unexpected success.
 
If you look through my posts in this and other threads, I have repeatedly noted my strong believe that the grand majority of owners will be charging their cars at home or at work for at least the next five years.
I realize that, I was just trying to reconcile that opinion with this statement:
This is where the 'logic' of flat rates per session breaks down. You give up every financial advantage of driving EV. And it gets even worse with smaller capacity battery packs. You pay more per mile of driving than you would when buying gasoline. With those kinds of numbers, people will simply keep driving ICE.
 
I wrote, "If you look through my posts in this and other threads, I have repeatedly noted my strong believe that the grand majority of owners will be charging their cars at home or at work for at least the next five years."

I realize that, I was just trying to reconcile that opinion with this statement:

I wrote, "This is where the 'logic' of flat rates per session breaks down. You give up every financial advantage of driving EV. And it gets even worse with smaller capacity battery packs. You pay more per mile of driving than you would when buying gasoline. With those kinds of numbers, people will simply keep driving ICE."

OK, I'll try to break it down a bit further. The money that leaves your pocket for 'fuel' with an EV should take you further than it would in a comparable ICE. It was a very easy comparison for Model S, as most of its direct competitors that approach its performance have a combined 20 MPG or less in the EPA's five cycle tests. But the cost of a pay-per-use system, even at a flat rate per charging session, would see a much diminished advantage for Model ☰ as compared to the class of vehicles it will take on.

I was essentially playing Devil's Advocate for those who disagree with me here. I don't agree with their position, and decided to take it to its illogical conclusion. That has been stated many times through the thread, where what I term as the 'Supercharger Apocalypse' results in everyone in the world deciding they will only use Superchargers for their cars unless they are no longer 'Free...' They insist that to deter 'abusers' and to keep Tesla Motors solvent, it is absolutely necessary to have a fee structure that is pay-per-use.

I have argued that the type of people who have poor behavior and bad habits when it comes to charging will not be driven away from Superchargers before regular Customers who follow the rules of ethical conduct and common courtesy would. Attempting to penalize 'abusers' with punitive charging fees for all will simply make things worse for everyone else at their expense. It isn't about being rare and exclusive. It is about being ubiquitous and affordable.

Trying to deter 'abusers' while 'protecting' Tesla Motors' financial investment in Superchargers would be counteractive to the intention of Superchargers. They are primarily meant to enable long distance travel, thereby eliminating one of the primary concerns for those who would switch from ICE. They are also meant to allow those who live in multi-unit dwellings in urban areas, who do not have access to home charging, to participate in the EV revolution as a secondary concern.

"This is why we can't have nice things."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garlan Garner
Maybe they need two numbers total Wh needed per mile, and Wh per mile from the battery.
That is my point. What matters in a comparison of range is how much energy the car uses. Not how much you spent to purchase energy. No one seems to include the energy to operate the gasoline/diesel pump, or transport the fuel to the gas station, or that is generated to complete the process of refining it from petroleum. It makes no sense to include downline expenses for one fuel source, and not the other. So you should only work with what is in the tank, and what is in the battery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garlan Garner
The money that leaves your pocket for 'fuel' with an EV should take you further than it would in a comparable ICE.
My point was that it does and will, even in the case of a more expensive Supercharging experience. Averaging your home rate with an occasional $20 flat fee isn't going to kill the economic argument, even if that $20 flat fee is twice the cost of gas on a similar trip. The number of people who would find fueling costs to be out of their favor would be the ones who have terrible at-home electric rates, or who travel almost exclusively on Superchargers. The latter group would, I think, go straight to unlimited Supercharging packages as those would be a clear choice. So I disagree that the flat-fee argument breaks down at all.

Remember that there are always other charging options available at market rates per kWh (or even free). Superchargers offer a premium charging product, so to speak, and therefore certainly could demand a premium economic cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff N
Remember that there are always other charging options available at market rates per kWh (or even free). Superchargers offer a premium charging product, so to speak, and therefore certainly could demand a premium economic cost.
100% agree. The 3rd party highway Superchargers will exist in whatever quantity, at whatever frequency, and charge whatever price that the market will allow.

If there's a $100/fillup for a Bolt owner who wants to travel across the state, he/she will pay it or NOT make the trip. But, if it turns out that $100 is overly excessive, then another party will pump electrons at a $75 station and take all the business from the $100 company. And so on and so on, until the market reaches an equilibrium which both allows a profit and attracts customers.

Therefore, I'll (again) predict that when 10 million new EVs hit the road every year that there will be a multitude of pay-per-use 3rd party fast-charging options all along the highway, and the Tesla network will just be an extra convenience for Tesla owners. And, if, at that point, Tesla is still charging for Supercharger access, then the consumer's calculation won't be "Do I get Supercharging or never travel long distances?" but will rather reduce to a simple equation of how many $X 3rd-party fillups can I get for a flat $Y Supercharger fee?
 
As long as it has been proven to work, my point is made. Tesla Motors went from expecting to sell maybe 15,000 units of the Model S worldwide to selling twice that many in 2014, and over three times that amount in 2015. They expect to reach four times that rate in 2016. Their Supercharger network had to expand more quickly as a result. And that express level of expansion meant that fewer of the facilities could be fully outfitted with canopies and battery backup. They needed to spend money on density and distance more so than delivering full fledged facilities. It is just another of the beneficial penalties of unexpected success.

No, your point was you didn't understand how Tesla could be paying high prices for electricity.

The idea that they can add Solar PV later and Battery Backup later doesn't address price now. On top of that the money they have to spend to add Solar PV and Battery backup only limits the cost it doesn't eliminate it. They have to pay for that equipment and installation vs paying the demand surcharges. Either way there is a higher cost than you and I spend for electricity.

It might save them money in the long run but it pulls costs forward and concentrates them up front. Pay more now so you'll pay less later.
 
Last edited:
My point was that it does and will, even in the case of a more expensive Supercharging experience. Averaging your home rate with an occasional $20 flat fee isn't going to kill the economic argument, even if that $20 flat fee is twice the cost of gas on a similar trip. The number of people who would find fueling costs to be out of their favor would be the ones who have terrible at-home electric rates, or who travel almost exclusively on Superchargers. The latter group would, I think, go straight to unlimited Supercharging packages as those would be a clear choice. So I disagree that the flat-fee argument breaks down at all.

Remember that there are always other charging options available at market rates per kWh (or even free). Superchargers offer a premium charging product, so to speak, and therefore certainly could demand a premium economic cost.
Do you think a $20 flat fee is why is coming down the pike?
BTW - do you know how many volts/amps/kw that a SC kicks out to push 300 miles in 20 min?
For a Chademo unit - do you know volt/amp/kw typically found?
 
Do you think a $20 flat fee is why is coming down the pike?
BTW - do you know how many volts/amps/kw that a SC kicks out to push 300 miles in 20 min?
For a Chademo unit - do you know volt/amp/kw typically found?
It most likely won't be a flat fee. The 3rd party stations will charge for usage, either by the minute, or directly by the kWh.

60kWh * 0.12/kWh = $7.20 wholesale cost, at average U.S. pricing.

Change $0.12 to whatever the utility charges locally, then multiply by 2x/3x/4x, and that's roughly what an unattended 3rd party charger will cost the consumer. Install a few stations outside your highway restaurant/convenience store and when millions of EVs are motoring down the highway the money will roll in (and your restaurant/store will obviously benefit as well).
 
It most likely won't be a flat fee. The 3rd party stations will charge for usage, either by the minute, or directly by the kWh.

60kWh * 0.12/kWh = $7.20 wholesale cost, at average U.S. pricing.

Change $0.12 to whatever the utility charges locally, then multiply by 2x/3x/4x, and that's roughly what an unattended 3rd party charger will cost the consumer. Install a few stations outside your highway restaurant/convenience store and when millions of EVs are motoring down the highway the money will roll in (and your restaurant/store will obviously benefit as well).

A local ChargePoint DC fast charger here costs $0.04/minute plus $0.20/kWh. It is rated at 50kW, so if you actually get that your costs would be 60kWh*$0.20=$12 plus 72 minutes*$0.04 = $2.88 for a total of $17.76. (And that assumes 100% of the power they charge you for makes it into your car.)

Blink charges $0.49-0.69kWh for DC fast chargers where they can otherwise they charge a $6.99-9.99 session fee. (But they don't say anything about if a session is limited to a certain time period of maximum number of kWhs.) So at a Blink station it would cost $29.40-41.40 if they are allowed to charge by the kWh or $6.99-9.99 if they can't. (There are only 4 states where they list they charge by the kWh.) Obviously those 4 states are getting the short end of the stick unless the session fee is only good for ~15-30 minutes.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Alketi
Musk has said specifically it will be cheaper than gas - not sure whether he is talking about prepaid or pay-per-charge.

Assuming pay-per-charge : a 20 mpg car to drive 200 miles would cost $40 @ $4/gallon. I look at this as the upper bound on what they can charge per complete session for a base model 3. If we take that as a 50kWh charge - works out to about $0.80 / kWh or about 8 times my home price. I'll pay that.

I expect the set price to be somewhat lower - say $29.95 a session.

To encourage only 80% charging - they may lower the price further - and increase the price for charging from 80% to 100%. $20 for 80% charge, $40 for 100% charge.

I think they should charge by the minute, rather than kWh. This is mainly because - occupation - or time at the supercharger is the constrained resource rather than the actual energy. So it makes sense to optimize for that.
 
Last edited:
About 10 pages back when Elon specifically said that the Model 3 would not have free lifetime Supercharging, I stopped reading any more posts by RedSage, or any replies to him. So now, there is almost nothing more to read .

I'll check back again when there are 10 more pages of posts and give it another go.

RT
 
  • Like
Reactions: alseTrick
About 10 pages back when Elon specifically said that the Model 3 would not have free lifetime Supercharging, I stopped reading any more posts by RedSage, or any replies to him. So now, there is almost nothing more to read .

I'll check back again when there are 10 more pages of posts and give it another go.

RT
I thought he said they weren't going to include it in the price of the car due to margins. But if you paid for the appropriate package that you wouldn't have to pay to use it (basically prepay).
 
This is why I believe that it should be a metered pay-up-front system. Let's say Supercharger access costs 2k upfront, and you get $1500.00 kwh of Electricity at, let's say $.16/kwH. Let's say the car gets about 4 miles/kWh. Then you'd essentially be getting 37,500 miles to drive before you have to reload your account. That would mean that most people would never reload their accounts, and it would essentially be "free" every time you go to a super charger, for the life of your ownership. People like that mail carrier in the TeslaMotors video who drive around rural roads all day everyday might end up using that in two or three years, and thus, would have to purchase another $500.00 or $1000.00 pack to reload their accounts.

Or, maybe you could automatically start off with $250.00 applied to your MyTesla account with the purchase of the car. The electricity itself would be sold at a locked in rate, determined by Tesla at the time of purchase. They could then incentivize you to purchase larger packs (ie a $250.00 pack for $0.20/kwh, $1000.00 pack for $0.15/kwh). At that rate, everyone would start off with 5000 miles of supercharger use but could add to it at any time. To your point, someone who practically never uses superchargers would never pay extra for supercharging. For those of us who LOVE road trips, we'd happily pay the $1000.00 to drive an additional 25k miles... or even just pay the $250.00 to get an additional 5,000 miles.

I haven't worked out the exact pricing structure or anything, but it seems that knowing there is a cost associated with Superchargers should be enough to dissuade people from camping at them when they don't need to, as well as begin to recoup a portion of the money associated with the service/infrastructure.

Looks like this is where we're heading at least for the Model 3 (and possible future Models S/X customers who have not already been promised "Free for the life of the car" by Tesla) and I think it's a really good thing.

Tesla Model 3 'Supercharger Credits' discovered on 'MyTesla' page