They are also trying to get as many people into an S or an X as they can. So I wouldn't expect them mention the 3 either. If they don't mention it then they leave it open for people to make assumptions that might induce them to get an S or X instead of waiting.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharging Costs
- Thread starter abelohlavek
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cost costs Model 3 Supercharging
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Maybe in the US, but over here, the Model S and X are high end luxury priced vehicles, especially the X. People in the market for a Model 3 won't consider an S or X an alternative, not at twice the price. Plus, they are far too oversized for most people here. Loads of people drive a 3-series, an A4, a C-class, a Passat etc., all of which are comparable in size to the Model 3. The market share of S-class et al., the cars comparable to a Model S or X in size, is miniscule over here. That's exactly why so many BEV hopefuls over here are so enthused about Model 3, finally a well-proportioned BEV that is financially within reach of many.
cpa
Active Member
I think Tesla wants to wait until all their ducks (or at least most of them) are in a row as it concerns the Model III. They might want to wait to see how Supercharger openings, permits and construction will look like when they make their second announcement.
It would be precipitate to say one thing or another about Supercharging as it applies to the Model III. We still do not know when the first car will roll off the assembly line.
It would be precipitate to say one thing or another about Supercharging as it applies to the Model III. We still do not know when the first car will roll off the assembly line.
Candleflame
Active Member
a thanks. 22 usdcents did seem indeed very low. So it's about half the price of Diesel in Germany which means that anything above a price of 12-14 eurocents/kwh still means diesel is cheaper per distance driven in america...
I think one of Teslas principles was to not make money of service and not make money of superchargers. So the share holders have to either get 51% of the shares together and change the company policy or they have to live with this. I guess the idea is that rather than marketing a car they are marketing almost a lifestyle product which people are willing to pay a premium for. Remember a lot of the smaller sedans/compact cars actually make no or very little money for car manufacturers without significant extras but exist only to reduce fleet emitions. The money then tends to get recouperated elsewhere, i.e. bigger cars or service.
NikeWings
Active Member
It took years and gobs of dollars, but Solar City has wrangled state by state to be commissioned to buy, sell, trade excess and can either replicate it for Tesla, or simply move the SC operation underneath the Solar City umbrella and it's done. Then the SC network is unleashed to do whatever, as well as benefit from solar tech as part of its go forward power gen plan.
ccutrer
Active Member
Nope, sounds about the same as here. I have an X for the family car, and love it, but know I spent way more money on it than I should for a car. Even if I could afford an S for my commuter car, I wouldn't. It's too big, and too expensive. I want a 3.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
So wait, you say you have an X. But the S, which is cheaper, is too expensive for you? To my simple mind this doesn't compute.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Just to clarify what meant:
The smallest (75D) naked and barebones Model X (over here) starts at 102.500 Euro, plus destination and registration fee.
The smallest (60 non-D) naked and barebones Model S (over here) starts at 69.019 Euro, plus destination and registration fee.
To me that is over 33K Euro (or about a third) cheaper than the Model X.
Plus, the Model X is considerably larger than the Model S in every dimension, yet you say the Model S is too big, even though you drive an X.
I just don't get it.
The smallest (75D) naked and barebones Model X (over here) starts at 102.500 Euro, plus destination and registration fee.
The smallest (60 non-D) naked and barebones Model S (over here) starts at 69.019 Euro, plus destination and registration fee.
To me that is over 33K Euro (or about a third) cheaper than the Model X.
Plus, the Model X is considerably larger than the Model S in every dimension, yet you say the Model S is too big, even though you drive an X.
I just don't get it.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Oh you mean he meant a Model S in addition to a Model X? That makes more sense. I thought he meant he had had the choice between an S and an X and chose the latter because it was smaller and cheaper. That didn't make sense to me. I must have misread/misunderstood his post. Mybad.
ccutrer
Active Member
Yup, sorry for the confusion. The X is the family car (with 4 kids) that I happen to drive a lot. Currently the Leaf is my personal commuter car, that will be replaced by a 3.
pinski
Not Ludicrous
I voted not for profit, but my intention therein is that Tesla will use revenue from the SC network to reinvest into improving or expanding the network, meaning that such revenue won't actually get applied to their bottom line.
Bokonon
Title-customizing Member
Straight from the horse's mouth... pricing details.
Supercharging
Some will be quick to point out that this pricing scheme only explicitly mentions "Model S and X" and not Model 3. However, it seems reasonable to assume (unless/until Tesla states otherwise) that the same pricing will apply to the Model 3 as well.
Supercharging
Some will be quick to point out that this pricing scheme only explicitly mentions "Model S and X" and not Model 3. However, it seems reasonable to assume (unless/until Tesla states otherwise) that the same pricing will apply to the Model 3 as well.
Last edited:
It onky makes sense to announce prices for charging the products that currently exist. By the time the Model 3 comes out the prices may change anyway.
ccutrer
Active Member
Dang, that's cheap. At least in my home state, it's very much on par with residential rates. We range from $0.08-0.12/kWh in winter, and $0.09-0.14/kWh in summer depending on tier (the more you use, the higher tier you're in). Tesla's rate here is $0.13/kWh. So I think that definitely answers it. They're not going to be making a profit.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It's a common American set-up:
'Family' car: SUV
'Commuter' car: sedan
'Family' is further defined as one driver, 1.5 kids, and 2 dogs
'Commuter' is one driver stuck in traffic
Bokonon
Title-customizing Member
At a glance, in the states where Tesla can charge by the kWh, their rate seems awfully close to the average residential rate over the past year, plus maybe 1-2 cents.
Electricity Prices and Rates (Updated Jan 2017) – Electric Choice
I don't know enough about how commercial rates and demand charges work to say for sure, but my guess would be that, by pricing supercharging just above local residential rates, Tesla wants to achieves the following:
1. Earn enough on the spread between the commercial and residential rates to cover most of the upkeep of the facility (so it's neither a profit center nor a significant cost center)
2. Make "local supercharging" much less appealing for those with residential charging capability (e.g. home owners), but not prohibitively expensive for those who don't (e.g. apartment-complex dwellers)
All said, a smart and fair solution, if you ask me.
One thing I'm curious about: as more and more superchargers get hooked up to solar arrays, will the addition of free sun-power have any effect on Tesla's rates?
Not really true. Even where there might be a question they could charge you a $50 plug in fee and give you the electricity for "free."
I agree with you 100%. Tesla's spread on negotiated power costs v. retail should let it make a profit and stay marginally more expensive that residential rates to keep someone from just charging there vs at home.
I am worried in ten years about how Tesla will really start to benefit from higher electricity costs (solar city) and that may change their obligation to shareholders to make a profit.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
I just played with their calculations and supercharge.info.....the semi-annual trek to the inlaws and back will cost me approximately $18 in electricity via superchargers, assuming I leave my house topped off, and leave my in-laws topped off.
For perspective, my wife's Subaru that gets 36mpg highway costs $30 to fill up, and the trip usually requires 2 fill-ups, and a half-tank top-off.
Soooooooo.... $18 < $75
I'm not going to complain about the loss of "free Supercharging for life" because A: I never had it and B: what I AM getting is still a cost savings of ~76%.
Now if we could only convince various jurisdictions to do something about the tolls.....
For perspective, my wife's Subaru that gets 36mpg highway costs $30 to fill up, and the trip usually requires 2 fill-ups, and a half-tank top-off.
Soooooooo.... $18 < $75
I'm not going to complain about the loss of "free Supercharging for life" because A: I never had it and B: what I AM getting is still a cost savings of ~76%.
Now if we could only convince various jurisdictions to do something about the tolls.....
Similar threads
