Supercharger Spacing

[Vger]

If you plan long term then you have to consider Gen 3 users, probably a lot more of them down the road then 85's

I think this is the biggest consideration for the long term. Just as Model S's outnumber Roadsters by nearly ten-to-one already, so it will be with the Gen III, or so we all hope and expect!

Elon has repeatedly said that a 200 mile [rated] range is the minimum he wants to build. That implies 150-mile SC spacing to allow some buffer for speeding, headwinds, or severe cold (as we learned painfully last winter).

 

[jerry33]

When it's winter in those places with colder climates, 150 miles is plenty far apart.

 

[dsm363]

When it's winter in those places with colder climates, 150 miles is plenty far apart.

I was just getting ready to post that. The 85 kWh pack means you can drive pretty much however you want to in very cold weather and still make it to the next Supercharger if it is 150 miles away. If it is every 180-200 miles then you might have to watch things a little closer.

 

[deonb]

Assuming a realistic 350kWh/mi

You should probably stop loaning your car to brianman...

 

[Ben W]

You should probably stop loaning your car to brianman...

Hahaha, fixed.

For comparison, the QE II cruise ship uses about 3500 kWh / mi. (100 gallons per mile)

 

[napabill]

Thanks for all the responses. Many valid points regarding the advantages of the 85kW pack beyond pure range. And my use of the term "snookered" was not very articulate as I was referring not so much to the price paid, but rather the immediacy of cross-country travel.

I also should have prefaced my comments by saying I'm retired, and becoming a Model S road warrior traveling the country is very high on my bucket list. Being that I'm pushing 70 years old, patience is something I view as better suited to the young. I'm the kind of guy who once traveled from Napa, Ca to Tucson, AZ by way of Vermont in my other Model S, of the Mercedes variety. Love driving. So I want breadth of coverage and the sooner the better. As I said, patience is for the young!:wink:

 

[dennis]

each city needs a SC at it's center, not many miles from it's perimeter. if a city is the destination one needs to "fill up" to allow for easy travel within the city and on day trips throughout the stay. finding decent speed charging at hotels is not too hard but if you are staying with a friend, it's a wild card as to whether you will be able to conveniently charge in their garage. Destination charging is the big challenge with the S. cities need to be included as well as a few SC's in remote areas, for camping/hiking/wine tasting etc.

SC's in cities are a real challenge. How do you keep locals from hogging the superchargers to get free fill ups? I've already seen it in Gilroy, where local Silicon Valley people shopping at the Outlet Mall plug in even though they don't need to, potentially delaying the West Coast Model S road-tripper.

 

[MarkR]

This is not going to be a popular post for the 60kW folks, but I'm becoming a bit annoyed at the roll-out of the Supercharger network. It appears to be designed to allow for 60kW road trips, necessitating far more locations along a given route.

Hey Bill, looks like you knew that you'd frustrate some people and you got what you anticipated. I seriously doubt that there are any hard feelings. I'm anxious to get more SC in place, but don't blame the 60kWh owners. New construction always has more delays than anticipated and I gotta wonder if Tesla is holding back to get the new technology in place before they install and then have to retrofit a lot of Supercharger locations.

 

[brianman]

If roughly half of all MS's sold so far have been to California then it would be only fair to have half the SC's, right? Maybe we should complain that we are supsadizing the buildout in other states, but i haven't seen anyone do that.

I'm growing weary of this argument. For one it pits Tesla owners against each other. For another, it's easy to make the opposite assertion: Why do you need superchargers for "near home" travel? If I lived in California, I'd probably find more value in SCs built out in all the states around California, not in California itself.

 

[dennis]

I'm growing weary of this argument. For one it pits Tesla owners against each other. For another, it's easy to make the opposite assertion: Why do you need superchargers for "near home" travel? If I lived in California, I'd probably find more value in SCs built out in all the states around California, not in California itself.

The most frequent routes travelled by Californians are SF<->LA, LA<->Las Vegas and SF<->Lake Tahoe. Those were the first routes to be built out with Superchargers. Building out SF<->OR and WA ahead of SF<->LA would not have made sense.

 

[brianman]

The most frequent routes travelled by Californians are SF<->LA, LA<->Las Vegas and SF<->Lake Tahoe. Those were the first routes to be built out with Superchargers. Building out SF<->OR and WA ahead of SF<->LA would not have made sense.

I think we're evaluating the intended purpose of superchargers differently, dennis.

Much like the often-maligned Gilroy "misuse" of superchargers, I don't see superchargers as intended to make an already do-able trip more do-able. Rather the initial roll-out should be about making nearly impossible trips possible. As such, the depth first roll-out in California is a misprioritized use of resources.

 

[towman26]

As a 60 owner I am hoping that the SC network here in Florida will work good. With the currant locations being proposed, we have a big gap in the center of the state which is also the most popular city, Orlando. With our first station just now opened it is the start of things to come. Our hope is that the back-fill comes as soon as possible to make east coast driving easy. Next summer we plan to drive to Tennessee but I don't think the SC will be in place so we might have to take a gas car and that's going to be costly. We have the 60 for now but when we get another one it will be the 85 for me just for the way I like to drive with a heavy foot, I drive my big truck all day which is slow so when I get into my wife's S I like to go!!!

 

[dennis]

I think we're evaluating the intended purpose of superchargers differently, dennis.

Much like the often-maligned Gilroy "misuse" of superchargers, I don't see superchargers as intended to make an already do-able trip more do-able. Rather the initial roll-out should be about making nearly impossible trips possible. As such, the depth first roll-out in California is a misprioritized use of resources.

It really depends on Tesla's goal for the superchargers. I believe they are trying to create the widest possible market for the Model S, reaching beyond EV early adopters who are willing to charge at RV parks, stop for several hours to charge, etc. and creating demand for the Model S among luxury car buyers who may have never owned an EV. If that is their goal, then they have appropriately prioritized their resources IMO by enabling the most frequent CA road trips first.

 

[brianman]

It really depends on Tesla's goal for the superchargers. I believe they are trying to create the widest possible market for the Model S, reaching beyond EV early adopters who are willing to charge at RV parks, stop for several hours to charge, etc. and creating demand for the Model S among luxury car buyers who may have never owned an EV. If that is their goal, then they have appropriately prioritized their resources IMO by enabling the most frequent CA road trips first.

I thought superchargers were about attracting (new) customers now making existing customers happier.

So you consider them to have "demand challenges" in California but everywhere else in North America they're fine?

 

[dennis]

So you consider them to have "demand challenges" in California but everywhere else in North America they're fine?

No, but it is smart to go after the low hanging fruit in the early stages of market development. CA has the most consumers, car culture, financial incentives, carpool stickers, inadequate mass transit etc. paving the way for adoption of a CA-made EV. Inability to easily travel the most widely used long distance routes would have been a big inhibitor.

 

[brianman]

No, but it is smart to go after the low hanging fruit in the early stages of market development. CA has the most consumers, car culture, financial incentives, carpool stickers, inadequate mass transit etc. paving the way for adoption of a CA-made EV. Inability to easily travel the most widely used long distance routes would have been a big inhibitor.

I think we just disagree here. I don't think CA has "untapped demand" that becomes "tapped" with more superchargers. Not nearly to the scale as every other continental state.

As someone who used all 8 CA superchargers in 28 hours, they have many more SC than they need for enabling "widely used long distance routes" in CA. And this is for an out-of-towner that doesn't "know" the roads enough to use them efficiently for EV LD.

 

[jerry33]

When I show my car (and I've been to six or seven events over the past ten weeks or so) virtually everyone asks about trips. Superchargers would make it much easier to talk about, as most folks don't want to wait around at RV parks. I suspect at least half of the more interested folks would have ordered if there were Superchargers.

 

[bollar]

When I show my car (and I've been to six or seven events over the past ten weeks or so) virtually everyone asks about trips. Superchargers would make it much easier to talk about, as most folks don't want to wait around at RV parks. I suspect at least half of the more interested folks would have ordered if there were Superchargers.

I think so as well. Once the Dallas, Houston, San Antonio triangle is possible, I think we'll see a large increase in the already brisk Texas sales.