TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Poll; The SC network is expected to double in size every 2-4 years... how should this be funded?

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by nwdiver, Jun 2, 2016.

?

How SHOULD supercharger expansion be funded?

  1. Only from usage fees

    2 vote(s)
    5.9%
  2. Mostly from usage fees

    6 vote(s)
    17.6%
  3. Mostly from vehicle sales

    16 vote(s)
    47.1%
  4. Only from vehicle sales

    10 vote(s)
    29.4%
  1. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    United States
    #1 nwdiver, Jun 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    We can quibble over the exact numbers... here is an article from InsideEVs on the value of the network. $154M as of September 2015.

    I don't know if the number of bays is linear to the throughput... maybe a mathematician or statistician can answer that but Elon has stated that the size of the network will double in the next two years... that was BEFORE they accelerated the production schedule.

    Also consider that aside from the difficulty of collecting sufficient revenue from use... you're also collecting revenue from FEWER cars to prepare the network for FAR FAR more cars. It's like trying to make social security work in reverse where a small population funds a large growing population.

    I don't know what the right number is... admittedly it's probably cheaper per car to build a nation-wide network for 1M cars than 100k cars.

    Yes... I think we can ALL agree (well... perhaps not ALL of us...) that local use needs to be discouraged but please separate punitive actions to mold behavior from what needs to be a source of revenue.
     
    • Like x 1
    • Dislike x 1
  2. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    United States
    Here's something to consider... let's use two numbers that we DO know... Tesla has spent >$150M on the supercharger network and there's <200k supercharger capable cars out there. So how much would Tesla need to collect from each car to double the size of the network by next year? ~$400 per car. Anyone really think that's possible? That's the trouble with building a network to support cars you will sell with the cars you have sold.
     
  3. geoffreak

    geoffreak Model 3 Reservation Holder

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I mentioned this in your other thread, but I think it's possible that Tesla will include part of the cost of the supercharging in the car's price (the network part, not the electricity part). This would allow the network to continue to grow rapidly and make the one-time payment and pay-per-use options cheaper. $400 is a lot easier to include than $2,000.

    Without at least including some of the cost in the car's price, Tesla ends up in a bad situation or a catch-22. Tesla would either have to eat the cost upfront, or they would be in the situation where they would be waiting on more people to use the superchargers and the people would be waiting on Tesla to build more of them.

    Since it seems to be clear that Tesla expects to continue expanding the supercharger network, the guaranteed money seems to be the better option and thus the one they would be more likely to take.
     
  4. TaoJones

    TaoJones Beyond Driven

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,299
    Location:
    The Americas
    The money will continue to come from two pots - Operations and Sales/Mktg.

    There is no need whatsoever for pay per use.

    Tesla has committed to density as well as distance for 2 years now. "Local" charging remains for the most part a canard analogous to voter fraud. Any one instance *by a garaged or livery/commercial owner* is evil, wicked,
    mean and terrible, but in relation to the whole network collectively remai s statistically insignificant.

    It would be probably be wise to get ahead of another morasse of ill-defined and misunderstood details, if these polls are going to persist, by separating the abysmal notion of "pay per use" onsite transactions from the concept of subscription usage. Even the latter is overkill if the one-time fee either during production or afterward is reasonable.

    Most owners do not use superchargers. And most Model 3 owners won't either. The hyperfocus upon a minor problem fueled by FUD is very unfortunate. As an owner and as an investor I will be very disappointed with any hinky pay per use scheme and am perfectly satisfied with the one-time fee that has worked 97% perfectly to date. Given the increasing levels of FUD in this forum and the tendency of the media to parrot what they read, I think it's time to write to the Board to ensure that the silent majority that is just fine with no base model SCing and the existing free/included/one-time plan is heard.
     
  5. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    United States
    #5 nwdiver, Jun 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    I thought so too... then I tried to supercharge at Gilroy. I agree that local use is a problem isolated to <5% of superchargers... but at those superchargers it IS a problem. If it was a non-issue then Tesla wouldn't have riled up their customers with an email and JB wouldn't be bringing it up at share holder meetings.

    I agree that ~$2k diverted from each sale can likely support the few people that use superchargers regularly instead of charging at home/work but that's a level of subsidy I don't think most people are comfortable with.

    I included that last statement in my OP since discouraging local use appears to be the primary reason behind the PPU advocates... which I DO actually disagree with. Local use should be discouraged... but not by applying a fee to all superchargers. If local use really isn't a thing then discouraging it shouldn't matter either.
     
  6. omgwtfbyobbq

    omgwtfbyobbq Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    456
    Location:
    Southern California
    I think it's possible. With lower per car supercharger costs, at some point they'll have to divert some of their existing infrastructure spending to the network. I'm guessing we'll see them divert some of what they're spending on infrastructure to build out the network if the 3 is successful, and then decrease spending again as they ramp up to produce their most affordable model.
     
  7. Jeff N

    Jeff N Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,132
    #7 Jeff N, Jun 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    If "free" Supercharger use is built into the price of expensive cars like the S and X and is an option on the less expensive cars like the Model 3 then I think, as a practical matter, that there will be enough money available to build-out the Suoercharger network.

    Pay per-use should be available to owners of less-expensive models that choose not to pre-pay for "free" access because giving away charging literally for free isn't workable and as a way of encouraging good resource utilization decisions. Supercharger access should still be a Tesla selling point even for non-prepay owners in order to help differentiate Tesla from traditional car makers. The per-use fee should be authenticated automatically without any more need for complexity than simply plugging in the car the way it is done today.

    If for some reason enough funds aren't being pre-paid and there isn't enough money for expanding the network then a modest "network build-out" mandatory option can be added to the less expensive cars such as the $400 suggested by @geoffreak.
     
  8. Fiver

    Fiver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    662
    Location:
    Utah
    I think the education really needs to be ramped up about what you get. At $2,000 for supercharging (hypothetically) you need to supercharge a LOT to get your money's worth. If this is made clear, less people will buy it, and less people will try and get their moneys worth. Honestly I was all in for getting supercharging, but over the last year, thinking about how often I actually would need long distance travel, it really does make sense for me to save the money, and just rent a car for the handful of times I actually travel outside of my car's range. Worse comes to worse I plan on keeping my sh*tty van (Used to haul all sorts of crap around town). I can just drive that long distance.
    The more people who start thinking hard about this the better, and I think more people will realize it's not necessary. As long as I can add it later, or if it's an option for a buyer who buys the car off me, that's fine.

    My situation is not everyones, I get that, but I think a lot of people fall into it.
     
  9. Tiberius

    Tiberius Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2016
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    SoCal
  10. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,704
    Location:
    Colorado
    As a Model3 future owner I'd like to see the following:

    Option #1: No SC, no extra cost

    Option #2: SC access fee of $500 for leases, $1000 for purchases to cover network build-out, and right to purchase 'coupon packets' that e.g. allow me 10 SC visits for ~ $100
     

Share This Page