My car won't charge faster than 60kW

[deonb]

When they are supply constrained and have more customers than they can handle, they ARE losing money because they could have sold it to someone who would not supercharge for all charging. Also, if their margins were cut almost in half, as your numbers suggest, this would greatly hurt TSLA.

Sure, but not on an individual car. They don't have a dire and immediate need to fix it unless it becomes a problem. They're not pricing themselves into bankruptcy, and can keep an eye on it to get more data.

For what it's worth, I do think that the SEC filing for the SuperCharger reserve is too conservative, based on the actual numbers they're encountering right now.

When those who use supercharging 100% of the time represent a sizable portion of sales (e.g. Model III), Tesla will have no choice but to either increase the upfront cost significantly or charge for access on a pay as you go basis.

I've seen this argument used multiple times before. Sure the Model III is cheaper, but the scale of the savings is also less.

Keep in mind that Model III's will have a smaller battery, but will still charge for approximately the same amount of time to get to 200 miles (physics). So let's say a Model 3-55 can add 50 kWh of charge in 80 minutes. That will save you $5... for 80 minutes of effort. Go mow your neighbor's lawn instead for crying out loud! You'll make twice as much money in half the time, and get exercise in the process.

Supercharging is not a logical thing for people to do, on average, to save money. Not all people behave logically, but I don't think you need to build an entire business model around the premise that some customers will behave like idiots. It will most likely be noise, in the grand scheme of things.

Note that the clueless-freeloader situation is very different than people who live in apartments and SuperCharge because they have no other option. They can be saving $100's per month over the cost of fuel, and for them the time spent charging is absolutely worth it. But then again, this type of usage is obviously within the Tesla business model, by looking at the London placement. And so far nobody has been arguing that the apartment dweller is a problem, but rather that the clueless-freeloader is a (large-scale) problem that needs to be addressed by more than just a couple of extra SuperCharger slots. I just don't buy it. Not after the initial novelty wears off at least. It's too much of a burden for too little gain.

PS: If there is however concrete data (not just anecdotal) that proves that this is indeed a large-scale problem, I would be more than willing to reverse my position on this.

 

[FlasherZ]

It makes poor business sense for TSLA to sell supercharger rights to someone for $2000 even though it will cost them $8,000. This only works currently because most of us who do not supercharge all the time are subsidizing someone who does. When those who use supercharging 100% of the time represent a sizable portion of sales (e.g. Model III), Tesla will have no choice but to either increase the upfront cost significantly or charge for access on a pay as you go basis.

About 18 months ago, I theorized that Tesla would freeze the Supercharger deployment at some point, when some energy distribution companies wake up and offer equivalent charging capabilities. Tesla would keep the Supercharger network free and as-is as a price-check balance against these energy companies, but would encourage the rapid growth of these chargers, much like the changeover from gasoline from car dealers to the oil companies.

I just don't see Tesla staying into superchargers and continuing to grow the free network; it's an enabler, and they'll do it as long as they need to, until the business opportunity comes along to create a pay-as-you-go base.

 

[WarpedOne]

until the business opportunity comes along to create a pay-as-you-go base.

Why do people have such an urge to demand pay-as-you-go pricing?
It is more expensive in time and money and has higher probability of failure, it demands extra steps in charging procedure etc.
And don't even mention credit or any other cards. Not all people have credit cards and there is already charging-card-hell out there, out of SC network.

There are many other alternative options for tesla to increase income if/when needed without painful (logistically and usability-wise) measures.

They can easily:
a) double the onetime down payment to say $4k
b) they can impose time limits i.e. you pay for one-week, one month, one-year of supercharging
c) they can impose charging time limits - i.e. you pay in-front for 10/100/1000 hours of supercharging
d) they can impose kWh limits - i.e. one pays in front for 100kWh, 1MWh, 10MWh of SCed energy
e) xyz

None of those are pay-as-you-go as any pay-as-you-go system will have ~1/2 of total price in the transaction costs.
Totally needles and stupid hassle.

 

[jerry33]

Using a supercharger as you describe in #'s 1 & 2 is consistent with enabling long distance travel. The supercharger doesn't have to be a long distance away. Very different the scenario being discussed earlier.

Correct, but there is no real way to tell the difference. Even if it's used as local charging for ten times, that doesn't mean the eleventh won't be due to a trip. Bad press all around for insubstantial cost savings.

 

[JRP3]

Back of the napkin calculation tells me, over 150'000 miles, if ALL charging on a Vehicle is done on a SuperCharger, it will cost Tesla around $7200 in electrical costs (400wh/m, 12c kWh).

Since most SC charging will probably take place during the day I'd say higher pricing/kWh should be used.

Why do people have such an urge to demand pay-as-you-go pricing?
It is more expensive in time and money and has higher probability of failure, it demands extra steps in charging procedure etc.

No it doesn't. When you plug in to an SC Tesla has data on the car and owner, the charge session could be automatically billed to a credit card or deducted from a bank account. Anyone buying a Tesla will likely have both a credit card and a bank account, but certainly at least one or the other.

 

[scaesare]

Whao! Since you clearly have access to insider information...

...

Since you know all this, please do share!

I repeat: the hyperbole doesn't help the discussion.

No insider information. Drawing my own conclusions based on the evidence I can glean, just as everybody else is doing here.

Much of this was discussed before in the "Supercharge Every Day?" thread. I'll reiterate what I stated in that thread:

Certainly lots of folks are of the opinion that the wording on Tesla's web page does not prohibit using supercharging specifically to avoid having to pay your own electrical costs. And technically they are right. That's the letter of the law.


But I don't think it's the spirit of the law. Just because something is not prohibited does not mean the usage aligns with the intent of the provider. Tesla has always discussed supercharging as removing the obstacle to "long distance travel" and take a "road trip" (Elon's words), where you don't have alternative typical destination-style charging available. Note the description on Tesla's web site regarding supercharging on the Model S page:

Superchargers are for refueling quickly on road trips. ... Superchargers will be positioned at convenient locations along major interstates throughout the country.

Now, folks may want to make the argument that a long commute is a road trip. I tend to disagree if you could reasonably arrange for facilities to charge on a regular/daily basis. If you can do that, and instead are using superchargers just to avoid paying electrical costs even if it's several hundred dollars, (after all, cost of commute is part of considering a job), then my opinion is that you using the system in a way that Tesla was not really intending.


As an example: hotels provide free ice for guests. In several situations I'm aware of where our large organization was arranging for a convention, it became obvious that some guests were using the ice machines to fill their coolers for the activity the next day. It only took a small percentage of folks abusing that resource to cause problems for the vast majority of the rest of the folks.


Was that usage expressly prohibited? No. Was it a problem to do as it wasn't in line with what was intended? Yes.


And therein lies the rub: The usage of superchargers other than for what's intended will not scale well.


Most people probably take road trips every few months on average. If it's every 50 days on average, Tesla needs to accommodate 2% of Model S users concurrently, spread out over the common travel hours of a given day. If instead just 5% of folks supercharge every day, and likely during commute hours, then the load at those times could easy be 10x what Tesla has planned for. If you keep biting the hand that feeds you, sooner or later you are going to regret it.


So, I'm under no delusions that people will go to whatever means to save a buck, but I think it's unfortunate. And although it has to do with HPWC charging at a Tesla Gallery location no longer being offered, I find one of the factors leading to that decision telling, according to Lump: "I was told some locals were abusing the privlege & leaving their cars there all day long so they were forced to close it off to all".


I fear similar will happen with supercharging over time if folks abuse the system.

You may want to read that entire thread for some context.

 

[scaesare]

Correct, but there is no real way to tell the difference. Even if it's used as local charging for ten times, that doesn't mean the eleventh won't be due to a trip. Bad press all around for insubstantial cost savings.

Which, of course, is why in that same post I also said: "I'm not suggesting Tesla is, or will, attempt to enforce this as a policy."

 

[SteveS0353]

About 18 months ago, I theorized that Tesla would freeze the Supercharger deployment at some point, when some energy distribution companies wake up and offer equivalent charging capabilities. Tesla would keep the Supercharger network free and as-is as a price-check balance against these energy companies, but would encourage the rapid growth of these chargers, much like the changeover from gasoline from car dealers to the oil companies.

I just don't see Tesla staying into superchargers and continuing to grow the free network; it's an enabler, and they'll do it as long as they need to, until the business opportunity comes along to create a pay-as-you-go base.

During all of the wild speculation before the range anxiety press conference, I speculated that one element of ending range anxiety could be expansion of the Superchager network, but not all by Tesla, and not all "free". I can imagine a future where Shell, BP, Exxon,... install a couple of Supercharger pedestals at their ubiquitous gas stations, and charge for the energy, and reap the benefit of drivers patronizing their convenience stores. Such partnerships could leverage Tesla's open-source patents on Supercharging as an enabler, with locations populated in the on-board nav database. Such a business case could make sense when the population of EVs (Tesla or compatible, or ChAdeMO) get to be significant. It could be a win-win-win - big oil wins with increased site traffic, drivers win with no range anxiety, and Tesla wins with EVs being considered mainstream.

 

[FlasherZ]

During all of the wild speculation before the range anxiety press conference, I speculated that one element of ending range anxiety could be expansion of the Superchager network, but not all by Tesla, and not all "free". I can imagine a future where Shell, BP, Exxon,... install a couple of Supercharger pedestals at their ubiquitous gas stations, and charge for the energy, and reap the benefit of drivers patronizing their convenience stores. Such partnerships could leverage Tesla's open-source patents on Supercharging as an enabler, with locations populated in the on-board nav database. Such a business case could make sense when the population of EVs (Tesla or compatible, or Chademo) get to be significant. It could be a win-win-win - big oil wins with increased site traffic, drivers win with no range anxiety, and Tesla wins with EVs being considered mainstream.

In line with Clayton Christensen (Innovator's Dilemma), I specifically believe it won't be the oil companies. It'll either be the existing energy companies (who own a distribution advantage already) or an entrant who can leapfrog with some other type of advantage (real estate, convenience stores). The oil companies will likely be the last to the party - trying to save themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people have such an urge to demand pay-as-you-go pricing?
It is more expensive in time and money and has higher probability of failure, it demands extra steps in charging procedure etc.
And don't even mention credit or any other cards. Not all people have credit cards and there is already charging-card-hell out there, out of SC network.

I think the credit card issue is a red herring. Most people today can buy rechargeable debit cards specifically for this purpose if required, and very few these days don't have credit/debit. Electronic pay is a way of life and will only continue to be.

Charging card hell is a problem, only because the existing companies insisted on using RFID "membership" cards linked to payment accounts rather than readers, and insisting upon membership. Think "pay at the pump".

There are two things we know: 1) it won't be free, if Tesla's not doing it; and 2) it will have to be large-scale (open to masses), where direct electronic payment makes sense. And keep in mind we have a few years yet to watch what happens to electronic pay if it's not generic credit card readers.

If you're one of the "I carry cash only" types, then you're likely either a) paranoid about the government and those computer things, in which case you're driving a '76 Vega because it doesn't use an ECM or have telemetry, and can easily be lined with foil; or b) don't have a credit history, in which case you still have reloadable credit or debit cards as an option, or electronic pay to checking/savings.

Even the existing model of "turn the {pump, electric} on" could be kept if it were an attended model - e.g., a restaurant chain or convenience store could have the same pre-pay cash model and could authorize the contactors to turn on.

Maybe you can be locked inside your car and forced to watch adverts for 20 minutes?

 

[SteveS0353]

In line with Clayton Christensen (Innovator's Dilemma), I specifically believe it won't be the oil companies. It'll either be the existing energy companies (who own a distribution advantage already) or an entrant who can leapfrog with some other type of advantage (real estate, convenience stores). The oil companies will likely be the last to the party - trying to save themselves.

Perhaps 7-11 fits the model (large number of convenience store locations, some with gas pumps, even internationally). While I agree with you that we'll likely see a non-Tesla driven expansion of fast DC charging infrastructure at some point, I wouldn't count the oil companies out entirely. It will certainly be interesting to watch it play out.

 

[wk057]

I'm still betting that supercharging will NOT be either the included or $2000 for life version when the Model 3 is released. It's going to have to be pay as you go to be sustainable. If it's announced that they're doing free, one time fee, or otherwise my stake in TSLA is getting 100% liquidated because the company will likely lose far too much money as a result.

While a large percentage of people affording the Model S/X likely won't waste time for $5 in power, people in the Model 3 certainly will if it's available. No doubt about it. If Model 3 is released with cheap/free/included supercharging I'll probably also have to sell my Model S because it will end up being useless for trips when I can't get a charging stall when I need it.

Long story short: Tesla most cerrainly will fail if their charging network is useless to those who actually need it.
Without the superchargers, free or not, I wouldn't own a Model S, let alone two. The fact that charging is free currently was not the selling point to me. The fact that the network was usable for realistic 10 hour drives was.

No supercharging access might have worked for some enthusiasts and early adopters... but it won't work for the masses.

Personally I have a 600 mile trip I make a half dozen times per year (1200 round trip) that I need to be able to do each way as a day trip. If I have to wait hours to get a stall to charge or otherwise significantly impact my travel time then I couldn't realisticly take the Model S when an ICE vehicle would be significantly quicker. It's already about 90 minutes longer each way in the Model S, which I deal with in exchange for no out of the way fuel stops day to day. Adding more to that delay would be unacceptable, however.

 

[davewill]

... While a large percentage of people affording the Model S/X likely won't waste time for $5 in power, people in the Model 3 certainly will if it's available. No doubt about it. ...

I consider that to be GREATLY in doubt. I find there to be very little difference in the propensity to obsess over a very small mount of money between wealthy and poor. Some of the wealthiest people I know can be the most anal about saving a buck. The difference will come from the higher volume of cars, not any significant difference in behavior.

 

[brianman]

I consider that to be GREATLY in doubt. I find there to be very little difference in the propensity to obsess over a very small mount of money between wealthy and poor. Some of the wealthiest people I know can be the most anal about saving a buck. The difference will come from the higher volume of cars, not any significant difference in behavior.

I think you're making a leap here, dave. He wasn't talking about the customer. He was talking about the car. Model 3 vs. Model S, not wealthy vs poor buyer. Some might argue there's a correlation, but the post you're replying to didn't.

 

[wk057]

I consider that to be GREATLY in doubt. I find there to be very little difference in the propensity to obsess over a very small mount of money between wealthy and poor. Some of the wealthiest people I know can be the most anal about saving a buck. The difference will come from the higher volume of cars, not any significant difference in behavior.

I disagree.

Don't take this as a bash against low->middle class income folks. I wouldn't do that because I've been there and my family has been there and started there. When I was a teenager my parents both worked and brought in < $40k/yr combined. I've been quite fortunate in recent years to have pulled out of a nasty slump and I'm grateful that I can now help support my family better than I ever could previously. If I were where I was a decade ago, financially, when the Model 3 came out you can bet your ass I'd buy a base Model 3 + free/included/cheap supercharging and would be charging no where but the superchargers because it would be a huge savings. It would only make sense to do so. To charge at home (spend money) vs charging on Tesla's dime (not spending money) when money is tighter is a no brainer.

That wouldn't be "obsessing over a very small mount of money." It'd be perfectly logical. Let's say instead of the Model 3 you bought a Prius or a Volt and drive the average 12.5k miles per year. You'd be looking at ~$800/yr minimum in fuel per year. With a Model 3 and home-only charging where I lived in NJ would be about $800/yr. Payments on those vehicles are going to be pretty close to each other, except if the Model 3 had free charging available you could potentially save an additional $800+/yr. That's more than a whole car payment per year in fuel savings. Over the life of the vehicle you could potentially recover 1/3rd or more of the vehicle's cost this way and have no fuel costs....

Imagine if you could buy a Honda Civic with a $2000 option that would let you fill up for free whenever you wanted at Honda dealerships... I don't know about you, but no gas stations would be getting my money.... and Honda would go bankrupt.

On that side of the argument... To me (and probably a good majority of Model S owners), regularly spending 30+ minutes at a supercharger to save ~$5 is completely preposterous and a complete waste of time. My time is worth much more than $10/hr.

However, when we start looking at a vehicle priced at around the $30,000 mark, this can change. A sort of rule of thumb in car buying is that usually the most expensive vehicle you should buy shouldn't ever cost more than your annual income. Using that, $30,000/yr gross is < $15/hr full time 40 hours/wk. It is also very likely someone with less income than that metric and half decent credit would be able to secure such a vehicle loan for a Model 3. The prospect of essentially saving an additional $10/hr+ for supercharging (a low estimate... much more in a lot of areas, like parts of California, NJ, etc, approaching a savings of close to $20 per full supercharge at times) will be much more appealing to that crowd. When you make $15/hr and using a nearby supercharger is a savings of $15-$20/hr it becomes much much more appealing to do so since you're getting a value for your time on par or better than you normally would.

For example, there is a supercharger in Charlotte, NC now that is in the parking lot in front of a grocery store. Locals may very well just work into their schedule using that charger exclusively once per week or as needed while getting some grocery shopping done, never charging elsewhere. And if it's free/included... I couldn't blame them, I'd blame Tesla for being stupid and letting it happen. When I got there and found eight locally owned Model 3's parked there on a Friday evening while they get free 100% charges while grocery shopping.

Bottom line is that if the Model 3 includes some form of free/included/unlimited as an option (similar to the 60), people will abuse the heck out of it because it would make sense to do so. Tesla is likely already aware of this, or needs to be aware of this. Even if only the same percentage of Model S users who do this do so with the Model 3, with 10x+ more on the road this is a very bad situation.

 

[MichaelS]

Charged at the Fremont SC this morning with 43% on stall 4A with 4B empty.

Maximum charge rate stayed at 50 KW until the taper started kicking in.

I have a A pack.

Still much much better than 6 KW on 208.

It seems the Tesla plans trips with a maximum stay of 40 minutes at a supercharger. The time to charge display this morning was 40 minutes. Coincident?

 

[FlasherZ]

Charged at the Fremont SC this morning with 43% on stall 4A with 4B empty.

Maximum charge rate stayed at 50 KW until the taper started kicking in.

I have a A pack.

Still much much better than 6 KW on 208.

It seems the Tesla plans trips with a maximum stay of 40 minutes at a supercharger. The time to charge display this morning was 40 minutes. Coincident?

Did you try to change stalls to another unit? 43% should have given you about 90 kW.

 

[MichaelS]

No, I could not because there were too many other cars. 4A was the only slot where its mate was empty.

Typically I don't see 90 kW unless the SOC is below 30%. Even then it starts tapering almost immediately.

 

[wk057]

Charged at the Fremont SC this morning with 43% on stall 4A with 4B empty.

Maximum charge rate stayed at 50 KW until the taper started kicking in.

I have a A pack.

Still much much better than 6 KW on 208.

It seems the Tesla plans trips with a maximum stay of 40 minutes at a supercharger. The time to charge display this morning was 40 minutes. Coincident?

Did you try to change stalls to another unit? 43% should have given you about 90 kW.

Your signature says you have a 60kWh Model S, which is ~65kW at 43%.

I'm wondering if this is a case of the supercharger trying to not utilize all sets of chargers. As I mentioned before, I was told that the superchargers can switch the 10kW chargers on/off/between stalls in groups of 3, which makes sense since they're sitting on single phases of 3 phase input and this would keep things balanced.

So, two groups would be 60kW. If the charger figured you'd hit 60kW or less on the taper within a reasonable time margin vs a 90kW set running at partial capacity, perhaps it makes sense to just not switch a full group on in that case.

~43% would be ~65kW, ~47% would be ~60kW, and ~55% would be 50kW.

So lets say 50kW from 43->55%. That's ~7kWh, or just under 9 minutes at constant 50kW.

Now let's start at 65kW and linearly taper to 50kW between 43->55%. Average speed of 57.5kW, or just under 8 minutes.

I'm pretty sure saving you less than 90 seconds isn't worth wear and tear on a full group of chargers.

This seems pretty logical to me.

(Used this video as a reference for 60kWh supercharging)

 

[islandbayy]

I consider that to be GREATLY in doubt. I find there to be very little difference in the propensity to obsess over a very small mount of money between wealthy and poor. Some of the wealthiest people I know can be the most anal about saving a buck. The difference will come from the higher volume of cars, not any significant difference in behavior.

From the standpoint of someone who has available to others public HPWC's, I agree with WK057. I do catch squatters. Even another business owner who HAS his own HPWC, 1 /2 mile from ours, I've caught charging up regularly at ours when he things we're not around. He will plug in, and walk to his business, then walk back after it's full..... And He's a Millionaire... Locally, there are a number of Leaf Owners, that "squat" the free J1772's, and not because they are trying to get further. A few have publicly admitted they charge up once/week for free at those stations.

 

[MichaelS]

What you say makes a lot of sense. But, this is unusual behavior at the Fremont location. I have hit 105 KW at low SOC levels. And usually I start charging at 70-80 KW when I am around 40%. But it tapers almost immediately. I have also seen where the car will charge at a lower rate then pop up to a higher rate after a bout 10 minutes.

Your signature says you have a 60kWh Model S, which is ~65kW at 43%.

I'm wondering if this is a case of the supercharger trying to not utilize all sets of chargers. As I mentioned before, I was told that the superchargers can switch the 10kW chargers on/off/between stalls in groups of 3, which makes sense since they're sitting on single phases of 3 phase input and this would keep things balanced.

So, two groups would be 60kW. If the charger figured you'd hit 60kW or less on the taper within a reasonable time margin vs a 90kW set running at partial capacity, perhaps it makes sense to just not switch a full group on in that case.

~43% would be ~65kW, ~47% would be ~60kW, and ~55% would be 50kW.

So lets say 50kW from 43->55%. That's ~7kWh, or just under 9 minutes at constant 50kW.

Now let's start at 65kW and linearly taper to 50kW between 43->55%. Average speed of 57.5kW, or just under 8 minutes.

I'm pretty sure saving you less than 90 seconds isn't worth wear and tear on a full group of chargers.

This seems pretty logical to me.

(Used this video as a reference for 60kWh supercharging)