I stand corrected then. I thought it was just after the intro not the intro of the 70. Thanks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I stand corrected then. I thought it was just after the intro not the intro of the 70. Thanks.
This is correct.
Honestly if the 3 has multiple battery options, the higher end ones should have supercharging included in the price, but the base 3 should have it as an option. There are plenty of people who don't need or want supercharging. This could be because where they live or travel to there are no superchargers, or perhaps the cars will be used as "fleet" vehicles and will be charged overnight at the office/warehouse or whatever. There's plenty of reasons to not include supercharging but still have it be an option. Of course, just like the original 60's that didn't come with supercharging standard, that option to enable it later should be a simple software unlock.
Nothing wrong with options.
First of all you shouldn't take anything as offensive or insulting this is merely a Tesla enthusiast forum, it's not a personal attack or anything earth shattering. If you were offended I appologise.
1) Yes Elon is smart, however the very nature of this site is offering our opinions on the company, their operations and their products. He makes mistakes i'm sure even he would admit that. He is not above all criticisms because, He's Elon! Again the smart play would be to include supercharging. As I said, even if costs start to rise and cut down on margins, I would rather see options cost more to keep free supercharging. The optics of removing supercharging would not be good and would give the anti Tesla movement more fodder.
2) I guess this entire thread is moot then, all Teslas have supercharging so what are we worried about? Lock the thread!
3) Yes, why wouldn't it? I have no doubt there is a certain min margin Tesla expects on each model 3 unit variant/configuration. I also have no doubt that costs for access to superchargers will effect that margin. Are the brains at Tesla saying "ah we'll just throw in supercharging, we'll just make 10% on each car instead of 15 without it). If costs rise due to any number of factors should Tesla just keep their pricing and standard features and just eat those extra costs? Many see free Supercharger access is seen as a promise and almost a part of the Tesla charter. Elon has consistently touted $35,000 BASE PRICE, so $35,000 is also a promise to be kept. So how else do you ensure margins?
4) It's a Seinfeld reference to extras, marks up and overages when purchasing a car, the car was a Saab in that episode, an ICE.
MassModel3
Member
Anybody who thinks Elon Musk doesn't make mistakes should read a few pages into this thread. Long time members of this forum -- people who have spent years waiting for their Signature Model X -- are cancelling their Model X reservations because Elon and the Tesla design team guessed wrong.
So it does happen. The S was a huge hit out of the ball park. The X has some really (REALLY!) cool bells and whistles, but functionally it was a bit of a miss for some prospective buyers. The 3 could go either way. I have great faith in Elon and Tesla to create another winner, but they won't please everybody. Just like the designs some people post here in the Model 3 forums. There are designs some think would be awesome, while other are saying, "Please, God, no!"
Back on subject, though, I would be amazed and shocked if the 3 didn't have free supercharging for all drivers. The fact is that daily use of a SC when you don't have to just isn't convenient. I don't have SC enabled and I'm fine with it. I'd rather get home, step out of the car, and spend all of 10 seconds plugging it in. I don't want to sit at a SC for 20 or 30 minutes just to save two bucks in electricity then drive home and plug it in anyway. Totally not worth it.
Tesla knows this. They expect some to need SC's if they live in an apartment and can't charge any other way, some to abuse their use of SC's just to pinch pennies, but most people will just want to get home and plug in and relax. The SC network will be there for everyone should they need it, but most people won't get a lot of use out of it. It's just not worth the time -- especially if it's cold, raining, snowing, etc. Also, if the SC's aren't in the relative path of the commute, people aren't going to take the extra time to drive to a SC when they don't need to just so they can sit there and wait.
Tesla takes all this into account and they'll include supercharging in the price so they can say every Tesla sold can be driven free for life. Major selling point for them. Those who don't use it will help defray the costs of those who do.
So it does happen. The S was a huge hit out of the ball park. The X has some really (REALLY!) cool bells and whistles, but functionally it was a bit of a miss for some prospective buyers. The 3 could go either way. I have great faith in Elon and Tesla to create another winner, but they won't please everybody. Just like the designs some people post here in the Model 3 forums. There are designs some think would be awesome, while other are saying, "Please, God, no!"
Back on subject, though, I would be amazed and shocked if the 3 didn't have free supercharging for all drivers. The fact is that daily use of a SC when you don't have to just isn't convenient. I don't have SC enabled and I'm fine with it. I'd rather get home, step out of the car, and spend all of 10 seconds plugging it in. I don't want to sit at a SC for 20 or 30 minutes just to save two bucks in electricity then drive home and plug it in anyway. Totally not worth it.
Tesla knows this. They expect some to need SC's if they live in an apartment and can't charge any other way, some to abuse their use of SC's just to pinch pennies, but most people will just want to get home and plug in and relax. The SC network will be there for everyone should they need it, but most people won't get a lot of use out of it. It's just not worth the time -- especially if it's cold, raining, snowing, etc. Also, if the SC's aren't in the relative path of the commute, people aren't going to take the extra time to drive to a SC when they don't need to just so they can sit there and wait.
Tesla takes all this into account and they'll include supercharging in the price so they can say every Tesla sold can be driven free for life. Major selling point for them. Those who don't use it will help defray the costs of those who do.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing, is that low-end econo-EV makers already have high charge options for unlimited free or near-free charging. My Leaf has a $1500-something package on it--that package gives me lvl3 charging access, which allows me to use the maybe 8 lvl3 charging stations around my city (all of which are free). This was on a $28k car so $2k for a $35k car would still make perfect sense and be desirable for people, as I understand it that Quick Charge package on the Leaf is extremely popular.
The Model 3 is different from the MS and MX in that it's going to be moving far, far more volume than MS/MX. At the current level of build-out Tesla isn't even coming close to handling all the MS/MX congestion in the very busiest of corridors--and they're still working on getting baseline minimal coverage nationwide. They really do need some sort of disincentive for not charging locally (if they go with the free route) and they could probably pull it off without a problem.
At the same time however--what complicates this--is that Tesla eventually will need the SC network to cover apartment charging available for local users. I'm not sure if this will be a big priority for Musk or not, though--they have a huge addressable market without going after apartment dwellers, but at the same time their target market likely lives in apartments (younger folk who are more into tech).
It's definitely a tricky situation. I feel that optional SC at the base battery level, like the S60, is a good idea. This by itself will likely kill a lot of local charging. I also don't think a strict pay-per-use model for all use will work (too little capital investment to keep up if not everyone is investing).
Personally, I think the best way to keep up is to have some sort of high cost offload for competitors to use the SC network while combining it with a separate option on the cheapest M3, and some sort of hard rules/limits on SC access (like 2 local supercharges a month, with an extra temporary option for pay as you use on a local charge just in emergencies). As long as they have hard and fast rules, I think it'd work out instead of the cryptic messages coming out now.
That's not really an issue.
Cell phone providers are the exact same way. Once a tower is built, data/call transmission costs are next to nothing--in a raw sense, cell phone providers are making thousands of % of profit margin on each gb of data you use if you ignore other factors.
Like superchargers though, you can't just build a cell tower network and leave it alone. It requires continuous investment or it won't keep up with new tech (faster charging speeds), congestion, increased subscribers, and even other manufacturers using your network.
The Model 3 is different from the MS and MX in that it's going to be moving far, far more volume than MS/MX. At the current level of build-out Tesla isn't even coming close to handling all the MS/MX congestion in the very busiest of corridors--and they're still working on getting baseline minimal coverage nationwide. They really do need some sort of disincentive for not charging locally (if they go with the free route) and they could probably pull it off without a problem.
At the same time however--what complicates this--is that Tesla eventually will need the SC network to cover apartment charging available for local users. I'm not sure if this will be a big priority for Musk or not, though--they have a huge addressable market without going after apartment dwellers, but at the same time their target market likely lives in apartments (younger folk who are more into tech).
It's definitely a tricky situation. I feel that optional SC at the base battery level, like the S60, is a good idea. This by itself will likely kill a lot of local charging. I also don't think a strict pay-per-use model for all use will work (too little capital investment to keep up if not everyone is investing).
Personally, I think the best way to keep up is to have some sort of high cost offload for competitors to use the SC network while combining it with a separate option on the cheapest M3, and some sort of hard rules/limits on SC access (like 2 local supercharges a month, with an extra temporary option for pay as you use on a local charge just in emergencies). As long as they have hard and fast rules, I think it'd work out instead of the cryptic messages coming out now.
That's not really an issue.
Cell phone providers are the exact same way. Once a tower is built, data/call transmission costs are next to nothing--in a raw sense, cell phone providers are making thousands of % of profit margin on each gb of data you use if you ignore other factors.
Like superchargers though, you can't just build a cell tower network and leave it alone. It requires continuous investment or it won't keep up with new tech (faster charging speeds), congestion, increased subscribers, and even other manufacturers using your network.
It's really off topic here, but I don't think this is a fair statement. Elon et all made some design choices, and those choices failed to meet the expectations of some reservation holders. That doesn't mean Elon or his design team were necessarily wrong - without a competing design in the market to compare, it's really hard to say whether the version they released would draw as many or more sales compared to the alternative; like any other car, the X contains details that may be dealbreakers for some or may cause others to decide it's the only car for them.
(This is not to say Elon doesn't make mistakes - as far as I know all of us do, at some point and to some extent - just that a design decision some folks don't like isn't necessarily a mistake.)
Walter
I disagree. Tesla did not "guess" about anything. They decided to target the X at the "family with kids" demographic, whose most important priorities are space for people and luggage and occupant safety. They did not target the "need to haul around really big objects and tow trailers weighing over 5,000 lbs" demographic. Tesla optimized the X for the former, not the latter. With a BEV it is difficult to satisfy both of those demographics because of the current state of battery power densities and costs, and the need for good aerodynamics. Tesla made a choice. No guesswork involved.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Even if they went with the "haul big objects around crowd", as many have noted the aerodynamics would have made the MX a fairly poor vehicle for hauling things around. Even a lot of members in those threads state they already have a cheap $20k pickup truck or huge SUV to haul stuff around when needed; the demographic that needs to haul things around on a daily/weekly but also can somehow forgo a pickup truck or full-size van is indeed quite small.
If there was a MX cancellation epidemic, you wouldn't see just long-time posters coming here to complain about it. You'd see hundreds from the 20-25k+ reservation crowd registering to post about their frustrations. Forums represent a really small subsection of the most extreme fans (both positive and negative), so it's natural that the forums will also have the crowd who expected the MX to be a miracle car that could somehow surpass luxury SUVs in passenger comfort and safety while simultaneously carrying the cargo of a 15-seater van.
ProphetM
Member
I don't really see how it needs to be Tesla's responsibility to make sure that apartment dwellers have some way to charge, any more than it's any other carmaker's responsibility to ensure that the buyer has someplace to park. Local supercharging is not going to be convenient for most people. It'll be like having to take your clothes to the laundromat, except that people don't need to buy a Tesla so if the charging infrastructure doesn't work for them, then it's not the right car for them and they will opt for something else. I doubt very much that there will be any pay-per-use option. The superchargers are meant for trips and I think they will continue to be described that way by Tesla, with no additional accommodation given to apartment dwellers. Those people are totally capable or working out charging details with their landlords.
There will be plenty of other people able to buy one, so sales will be massive anyway. As electric cars become more popular, more landlords will want to provide charging access as a perk to attract and keep tenants - plug-in hybrids will need them, too. The Model 3 may be far cheaper than an S or X, but it's still not a cheap car, and the people that buy them are not going to be living in dumps. Even the apartment dwellers will be living mostly in nice apartments, where landlords provide stuff like covered parking, on-site laundry, pool, gym, dog run, etc. A place to plug in is just going to be another amenity that a good complex will need to provide in order to compete and to keep their tenants.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That's my main point too. Tesla should not be expected to carry all the weight of supporting apartment dwellers with the supercharger network. Tesla has chosen to do so in some markets (without charging pay per use), but in general this is an issue that government or the overall market has to solve if BEVs are to be viable for such a market. Given apparently only one automaker is in serious talks with Tesla about adopting superchargers, it's not like superchargers will be the standard that will support this market in the long run.
I'll go one step further. I think Tesla needs to somehow screen out potential buyers who don't have a reliable means to charge regularly on demand, at least initially. Apartment dwellers? People without a dedicated charger at work? No Tesla for you!
OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. But for potential buyers who don't have charging at home or a dedicated spot w/ charging at work, Tesla would need to spend a lot of time educating them on what they're getting themselves into.
There are plenty of buyers out there. Tesla will be production constrained on the 3 for a long time, even if don't sell to any apartment dwellers. They'll be fine if they limit the addressable market to "homeowners" vs "everyone".
Early adopters of the Roadster and Model S, for the most part, understood the issues and potential pitfalls around charging. The general public will not. If there's a ton of new Model 3 owners who have no charging at home or work, and have to rely on often broken, public L2 stations in a municipal garage with limited availablity, or crowded superchargers, those owners will be screaming about how horrible the ownership experience is.
It'll be a PR nightmare that could do irreparable damage to the brand.
Candleflame
Active Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It's not impossible. Toyota is doing exactly that for the Mirai and all the HFCV makers have done similar (including Daimler, Hyundai, Honda).yeah right. screen potential buyers. Man, quit smoking.
MassModel3
Member
Whether you call the Model X a CUV or an SUV, the "UV" is for utility vehicle. The Model S has amazing aerodynbamics, but it has folding rear seats. As many threads have demonstrated, the S can carry an amazing amount of cargo internally without compromising aerodynamics. By not making folding seats in the X, Tesla has taken the "utility" out of the design. Yes, it can carry up to 7 adults. The S can carry 5 adults and 2 children but it has folding seats and I can carry a LOT with the seats down. So the ability to pack the vehicle without compromising aerodynamics is exactly the point. They took away the use of interior space in the X for anything other than passengers.
The inability to fold the seats and otherwise use the internal space for storage means that Tesla has simply reinvented the mini-van. Yes, it's an amazing mini-van, but it's certainly not a utility vehicle. In that one small facet, I truly feel they guessed wrong.
I know Tesla threw the offer out there, but I didn't know there were any serious contenders. What other auto maker is seriously considering adoption of the supercharger network?
ProphetM
Member
All I've heard is that the company in discussions is a European automaker, but is not the VW Group.
As far as I can tell, no one on the forum knows. Elon said in a speech in Germany a week or two ago that a European (but not German) automaker was in serious talks about it.
The most intelligent speculation I heard was that it was a high end sports/luxury marquee like Aston Martin or Bentley - both of whom have been talking about EVs more seriously lately, can easily turn a profit on a serious EV, and would have trouble justifying building a supporting network of their own.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
As others put it, no one knows who it is. We only know that there is one European automaker in serious talks about it.
The reference to Aston Martin is interesting since Chris Porritt now Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla was Aston Martin's Chief Engineer when Tesla hired him away May/2013.
If he left on reasonably good terms his former relationships at Aston Martin could well prove advantageous for supercharger conversations now.
No, Tesla will not need that. The only reason apartment dwellers have problems is that apartment building owners aren't motivated to install or allow installation of chargers. Tesla's job is to make the cars that change landlords' minds.
What Tesla might find value in, would be creating a turnkey L2 multi-vehicle charging system.. (Maybe even DC...).
Unfortunately fully open and accepting landlords would still only address a small part of the apartment-dwelling market. Many apartment complexes have no car parking to speak of, and cars are relegated to the street.
The first hurdle will still be huge to overcome. My former residence was an apartment complex with a private parking lot immediately next to the building. I offered to fully fund a charging station and conduit installation, along with charging costs. My landlord denied it.
There's also very little financial incentive for charging. Costs for installation are high and return is low. If you have a paid parking spot, the manager of said spot could facilitate such an install and bill it with parking; those with non-deducated spots or those who don't pay for parking are in much tougher spots.
No other manufacturer is jumping to the plate. Governments and businesses aren't doing a great job either. While the apartment option in theory sounds great, even now there are tons and tons of apartments that won't offer popular amenities like laundry facilities, off-street parking, or other things.
