-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
It is nice to see a new permit has finally been issued in Cisco Texas for a Supercharger on I-20 West of Dallas/Fort Worth... Now, will the next one be in Midland, Big Spring, or Sweetwater?
There was something else I wanted to post, but I'm tired, it's late, and I haven't been able to find it yet...
There was something else I wanted to post, but I'm tired, it's late, and I haven't been able to find it yet...
Throttling usage is crazy. The bottlenecks at superchargers would be compounded by those stubborn owners looking to get their supercharging money's worth (in their estimation/interpretation at least) or those selfish/greedy enough to use supercharging for utility bill lowering.
MrBoylan
Member
When Musk made that quote (in January 2014), enabling SC access on a 60 kWh Model S cost an additional $2,000. Just trying to add some context. I'll take free SC access on a Model 3 if Tesla can afford to include it for $35K. If not, I'll pay for it.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Yeah. I've called [BOLSHEVIK] on the Editors over at InsideEVs before... Because they often report that Elon Musk 'said' something without actually quoting him. So, whatever they wrote was often a paraphrased statement, or their opinion of their paraphrased statement, without actually noting what he actually said. They replied to me in the comments section that they were 'not allowed' to quote him, because they were relating a story they got from another source. Apparently they have an internal rule whereby unless their own reporters conduct the interview, they won't quote someone, unless it was part of an official public announcement. If I understand correctly, they either don't want to be accused of plagiarizing other sources, or they don't trust the interview techniques of those sources (in case something was imperceptibly edited out) enough to consider them accurate, even though they will report the same thing. The result is that even if a source posts a video interview of Elon, where he directly answers a specific question, InsideEVs will not quote him directly, or the question that he was asked, but will report on their own 'impression' of the conversation. It seems like a really weird policy to me, but I guess they have their reasons. What do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet. I am not a lawyer, but I argue with them all the time.
I find the Tesla Motors March 20 Facebook post “Tesla Motors in Brooklyn, New York” which was a link to https://www.teslamotors.com/customer-stories/owning-tesla-brooklyn to be complementary and relevant to this thread in multiple ways. It discusses “three zones” and the use of destination chargers in public parking garages.
A key point completely missed in this thread is that many Urban dwellers just don't have enough personal time to drive enough miles to put a significant load on urban superchargers.
On the other hand, non-personal (i.e. commercial) miles of any sort can be a big problem. Is special contract language really needed to make it clear that Tesla doesn't expect to give energy to commercial interests, including small scale interests such as Uber drivers?
As a suburban resident committing 45 miles each way across the Philadelphia metro area, I will certainly install appropriate L2 charging 'infrastructure’ in my own garage. I don't have enough personal time to spend attempting to 'save’ electricity costs. Supercharger access has plenty of value for me that I would still opt in should that be necessary.
I get that renters in a suburban environment can be in a tough spot until it is more obvious to more landlords that some L2 infrastructure investment is necessary.
A key point completely missed in this thread is that many Urban dwellers just don't have enough personal time to drive enough miles to put a significant load on urban superchargers.
On the other hand, non-personal (i.e. commercial) miles of any sort can be a big problem. Is special contract language really needed to make it clear that Tesla doesn't expect to give energy to commercial interests, including small scale interests such as Uber drivers?
As a suburban resident committing 45 miles each way across the Philadelphia metro area, I will certainly install appropriate L2 charging 'infrastructure’ in my own garage. I don't have enough personal time to spend attempting to 'save’ electricity costs. Supercharger access has plenty of value for me that I would still opt in should that be necessary.
I get that renters in a suburban environment can be in a tough spot until it is more obvious to more landlords that some L2 infrastructure investment is necessary.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't think any "zones" apply to the "abusers" we are talking about, nor does any "time value" apply to them. For them it is simple: they charge at superchargers exclusively for all travel. They are close enough to one for it to work out.
It causes problems like this one (note that the abusers are not commercial drivers):
[Rant] locals clogging the Highland Park, IL supercharger
Darryl
ModelXTracker.com Co-Adm
There are users who think Supercharging Network is for everyday useage. Tesla recently started sending warnings out to Tesla Model S users who regularly use a charger which is close to their residence reminding them this is not the purpose of the Supercharging Network. They reminds these users normal charging is suppose to be done at their residence.
The current Supercharging Network does not even have the capacity to handle the current Model S users and now their adding 20k Model X cars in the next year and they are in the process of expanding the network to handle Model X and S. The X's paid for the expansion through the price of the car.
If the Model 3 will be using this network they will have to either make it an option on the Model 3, ($1,000-$2,500) or there may be many Model 3 owners who will never need to use the network which would mean they may charge a small upfront fee ($500 to help with the expansion costs, plus a per use fee to pay for electricity. They can't base it on usage as many states only allow electric companies to charge for electric therefore it would have to be a per use fee no matter how much electric you use.
The current Supercharging Network does not even have the capacity to handle the current Model S users and now their adding 20k Model X cars in the next year and they are in the process of expanding the network to handle Model X and S. The X's paid for the expansion through the price of the car.
If the Model 3 will be using this network they will have to either make it an option on the Model 3, ($1,000-$2,500) or there may be many Model 3 owners who will never need to use the network which would mean they may charge a small upfront fee ($500 to help with the expansion costs, plus a per use fee to pay for electricity. They can't base it on usage as many states only allow electric companies to charge for electric therefore it would have to be a per use fee no matter how much electric you use.
You can't charge per kWh in some states, but I believe you can get around that by charging per minute or per session.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
You can also get around it... by having no fees at all.
Darryl
ModelXTracker.com Co-Adm
That's what I said.
Someone has to pay for the expansion to support the additional cars( more model 3 than all prior Tesla's combined, pay for leasing properties, pay for continued maintenance on the equipment, pay for electricity. It is not free matter of fact it is costly. The extra cost was built into the cost of the existing Tesla's (other than the roadster sho had to pay extra) but to keep the price of the Model 3 under $35,000 it was not built in the base Model 3. By making it an option those Model 3 owners who would not use it can choose not to purchase it.
Chuq
Active Member
That's one possibility for keeping the initial price down, but I don't think it's been confirmed anywhere.
It wasn't but it is a safe bet.
It will be optional enabling lower base price i.e bigger battery for same $$$ and at the same time limit SC usage. No brainer.
It will be optional enabling lower base price i.e bigger battery for same $$$ and at the same time limit SC usage. No brainer.
I think other commercial models need to be considered for making SuperCharging for Model 3 work. An obvious one that may not work in every country is Tesla striking a deal with an electricity provider to provide free charging at home. I think this is happening in one Scandanavian country. My renewable energy supplier Ecotricity gives me 1000 miles of electric free. If Tesla strikes a deal where they pay a heavily discounted rate and say that the number of miles charged at the home location gets a proportionate utility bill discount then no incentive to pop to a local supercharger and the grid will be happier since more overnight charging.
Of course this would mean customers having to use the named electricity provider, but that is a choice that can be refused.
Of course this would mean customers having to use the named electricity provider, but that is a choice that can be refused.
You were talking about "per use" which I read as a flat rate per charge session, regardless of length. I was pointing out you can also charge per minute, which gets you closer to "per kWh" without breaking the rules. It also discourages people from "camping out" after they're done charging ("I'll move when I finish dinner"), which could be a big problem.
I suspect we'll see something similar to the S in the 60/85 days. They'll be a fee to enable SC on the base model, but the higher (or highest) end models will include it for "free" (quoted so people don't go off on the "it isn't free, you paid for it at purchase" rant)
A little while ago, I had an Uber pick me up in a Model S. During the trip, we had the opportunity to discuss our Tesla experiences.
This driver drives for Uber full time in the S, which he purchased CPO. He lives in a home with no charging capability, so he exclusively charges at supercharging stations. Based on his usage, he consumes about $3000 worth of electricity a year (assuming $0.12/kwh).
Tesla can send this customer all the polite letters they want - it won't change his behavior as it is his livelihood at stake.
He is obviously on one end of the spectrum for S owners, but if you do the math you can see that it doesn't take too many to throw off the curve. He had to wait for CPO prices to drop to ~50k to make the math work out for his scenario. With the introduction of the 3, I think the appeal of a $35k car with no/low fueling costs would be considerable for livery (taxi/uber/lyft/etc) operators. Especially if the 8 year unlimited mileage battery/drivetrain warranty is still in place.
I don't expect to see an all-you-can-eat plan for the 3, but I'm prepared to be surprised =)
This driver drives for Uber full time in the S, which he purchased CPO. He lives in a home with no charging capability, so he exclusively charges at supercharging stations. Based on his usage, he consumes about $3000 worth of electricity a year (assuming $0.12/kwh).
Tesla can send this customer all the polite letters they want - it won't change his behavior as it is his livelihood at stake.
He is obviously on one end of the spectrum for S owners, but if you do the math you can see that it doesn't take too many to throw off the curve. He had to wait for CPO prices to drop to ~50k to make the math work out for his scenario. With the introduction of the 3, I think the appeal of a $35k car with no/low fueling costs would be considerable for livery (taxi/uber/lyft/etc) operators. Especially if the 8 year unlimited mileage battery/drivetrain warranty is still in place.
I don't expect to see an all-you-can-eat plan for the 3, but I'm prepared to be surprised =)
diamond.g
Active Member
Could Tesla be justified in preventing this kind of user from utilizing the SCs near their home? When purchasing the vehicle is there anything in the agreement about SC usage, and if Tesla reserves the right to cut you off (a la AT&T and unlimited data)?
MrBoylan
Member
To me this really qualifies as supercharger abuse. Everywhere I see references to Supercharger use on Tesla's web site, it's "Free long distance travel on the Supercharger network" (emphasis mine) not "unlimited free supercharger access." Why should Tesla subsidize this guy's business? Why would someone base their livelihood on gaming the system like this?
IMHO, Tesla would be within their rights to prevent this customer from being able to use (abuse) his local supercharger.
I expect there to be an option (extra cost) for the Model 3 for "unlimited long distance travel on the Supercharger network." But I also expect some clarification of the wording in the owner's agreement that frequent use of (in this case "sole reliance on") local Superchargers is not allowed. If there's nothing like that in there now, then it may be tricky for Tesla to go after these types of customers.
Tina C
Member
Supercharger network is the main reason why an EV is even feasible for me. It is the MAJOR advantage that Tesla has over all the other EV cars. None of them are invested in a charging network or consider their cars to be anything other than a commuter car for local area. I can't even consider low range options, even though I am an extremely low mileage driver (current car owned since 2004 & it has 61,000 miles). I typically live in single family homes, but usually rent. I would consider adding a 220V plug IF it only cost a few hundred dollars and IF the existing electric panel had space and IF my landlord allowed me to. See all the IFs? I would NOT invest in an expensive wall charger or expand an electrical panel for a rental house. We move on average every 2 yrs (military family), but this time it's after only 1 yr. Fast superchargers are essential to being able to actually move to a new state, often 1/2 way or all the way across the country, as well as trips. I would typically charge at home IF possible, but there might be places where I have to rely on superchargers (probably only 1x per week) for my local charging.
My point is everyone's situation and needs are unique to them. Some people live in urban apartments with no electric access by the parking lot. Keep in mind most of those people are probably low mileage drivers. Some people live in single family homes with garages and rarely move so installing fast wall chargers is logical & convenient. Some people are high mileage drivers with long commutes and don't want to waste their time sitting at a supercharger when they could just plug in at home. Some supercharger locations are just not convenient to use - who wants to drive across a city just to plug in? Some people are cheapskates who will charge 100% at superchargers or other free chargers to save a few bucks. Overall Tesla owners (current & future) have multiple situations so I don't think the average supercharger station will be overrun, abused, or make Tesla go broke paying for electricity. They should continue to expand the supercharger network, and all those M3 sales will help pay for that.
Tesla could also look into renewable energy for the superchargers, whatever is most appropriate for the local area. They could also consider a monthly subscription or higher initial supercharger fee for cars that are titled to corporations.....but probably not necessary because most corporations using EV's for their fleet would install charging stations at their office. It would be considerably cheaper for them than buying gas and they probably would get a big tax incentive to do it.
So everyone needs to calm down. M3 owners aren't going to ruin everything!
My point is everyone's situation and needs are unique to them. Some people live in urban apartments with no electric access by the parking lot. Keep in mind most of those people are probably low mileage drivers. Some people live in single family homes with garages and rarely move so installing fast wall chargers is logical & convenient. Some people are high mileage drivers with long commutes and don't want to waste their time sitting at a supercharger when they could just plug in at home. Some supercharger locations are just not convenient to use - who wants to drive across a city just to plug in? Some people are cheapskates who will charge 100% at superchargers or other free chargers to save a few bucks. Overall Tesla owners (current & future) have multiple situations so I don't think the average supercharger station will be overrun, abused, or make Tesla go broke paying for electricity. They should continue to expand the supercharger network, and all those M3 sales will help pay for that.
Tesla could also look into renewable energy for the superchargers, whatever is most appropriate for the local area. They could also consider a monthly subscription or higher initial supercharger fee for cars that are titled to corporations.....but probably not necessary because most corporations using EV's for their fleet would install charging stations at their office. It would be considerably cheaper for them than buying gas and they probably would get a big tax incentive to do it.
So everyone needs to calm down. M3 owners aren't going to ruin everything!
