Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Supercharging - Elon's statement that Daily Supercharging Users are Receiving Notes

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If you want to look at it in that light, I think it is more about long term EV adoption given the customer base moving from home owning suburb dwellers to apartment owning city dwellers. SCs were meant for travel and not the day to day power needs of the car's they support. It is as simple as that as it is plain to see that the SC model CAN NOT function if everyone is using it for all their daily charging needs.

The real question is how to we facilitate population wide EV adoption when a (good) percentage of the population does not have a garage to charge in?
 
How does Tesla or anyone really know what your charging situation is at home? You could be divorcing.

Tesla isn't announcing some automatic mechanism to smite you if you use SuperChargers. It's just a note. Presumably you can call them up after receiving the note and say:

"I understand the policy, but my wife slept with an ICE car dealer, and now I have to divorce her", and which point Tesla will go: "My bad, sorry to hear that, we promise to leave you alone."
 
The real question is how to we facilitate population wide EV adoption when a (good) percentage of the population does not have a garage to charge in?

Answer is pay-per-use local Superchargers.

Besides encouraging abuse, another problem with the "free for life" model is that it doesn't give any incentive for independent for-profit businesses to install L3 chargers. Tesla's Superchargers have done a great job of priming the pump, but we'll need private enterprise to step in to seriously expand the infrastructure.
 
Thank you for all the responses to me, I have read and noted them all.

I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following:

In general I think your summary is reasonably on track for several things.

I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.

Here's one specific point I don't share the viewpoint on.

Tesla indeed did not specifically prohibit all inappropriate uses of the supercharging infrastructure. However they did outline conditions for their usage.

Again, If a restaurant bills: "For our lunch customers we offer free refills.", then the first term provides conditions for the second, even if all the specific prohibitions are not spelled out. (Can't fill your 2-gallon picnic cooler to take home, not to provide drinks for the other parties at your table, etc...)

Even if elsewhere on that sign it says "Customers are welcome to take as much soda as they'd like.", you cannot take phrases out of context and build a case upon it.

As has been stated before: the the conditions surrounding the usage of the superchargers were not unclear to the vast majority of people. Tesla does not need to think of every single misuse possibility and then disclaim it, just as the restaurant above does not need to.

The attempt to suggest that Tesla did not have a 10 page set of prohibitions implies no conditions whatsoever, is similar thinking to what leads to grossly over litigious society these days.
 
Last edited:
SuperCharger usage for road tripping is currently 5%.

So even if only 5% of garage chargers use SuperChargers for TCO charging, it doubles the number of SuperChargers required.

Is this number accurate? Where did you find it? Ive used my local supercharger exactly once for local driving because I forgot to charge the car the previous night. And I've used it twice for trips to gain range while leaving town to make it to the next supercharger. I would have assumed that 95% of Tesla owners were like this as well.

Excluding those with apartments and/or lack a nightly place to charge, isn't stopping at a supercharger a couple times a week during your commute no better than the inconvinence of having to stop at a gas station? And pardon my bluntness (but not really), are there that many cheapskate owners out there that can't deal with a 30-60 dollar increase in their home electricity rates? I mean, what's the benefit to the opportunity cost of your time:

1. Maybe you don't have anything better to do
2. Maybe you prefer to be outside
3. Maybe you have a rough home life you need to escape
4. Maybe you installed the HPWC yourself and you don't trust your work

I am seriously interested in why 95% feel the need to not charge at home. Oh, and the response "because I can" is completely acceptable.
 
I wrote an updated version of my summary, to see if more people could agree this is where we're at - and agree to disagree on the argument part? The changes are in the bolded part.

I am interested if a summary of sorts might generate some more mutual understanding than a continued tit-for-tat. I am genuinely interested how many of you could agree to the following, now updated:

I think most us agree Tesla created the Supercharger system to solve certain specific issues hindering EV adoption, including both lack of infrastructure and the unique needs of EVs. This started with long-distance travel (call it the road trip), both the lack of charging and the lack of charging speed, but eventually evolved into other intents as well, such as solving the question of urban charging (London), perhaps - at least temporarily - even issues like operating a taxi fleet of EVs (Schipol) which would not work as well without such fast charger.

I think most us agree Tesla has calculated the price of the Supercharger system (built into the price of the car nowadays) in such a manner that it would be mostly used for the above-mentioned purposes. I think most of us can also agree Tesla would prefer the Supercharger system to be used for these purposes and not much for other purposes. No doubt, Tesla is also a strong advocate of the home charger, and of the EV-era home (solar, PowerWall etc.) and would not wish to hinder this with the Supercharger.

Also, I think most of us agree the Supercharger, as unique a system as it is, is by nature an obstacle remover - not an instrument of lesser total cost of ownership. There is some debate over whether or not, as EVs have crossed these obstacles and moved to the mainstream, the Supercharger system may become - for future Tesla models - either pay-per-use or perhaps one day even obsolete if other solutions to EV charging replace it in society.

I think most of us can agree, Tesla did not specify or impose - prior to the latest general meeting - any specific limitations on the use of Superchargers, beyond rules related to parking at Superchargers (be it in the form of traffic signs or the website FAQ). I think most of us even agree, Tesla will not likely impose any limitations on the use of Superchargers (on Model S), beyond informative letters.

Where there is a main disagreement, and my intent here is merely to note this not continue to argue it, is: Was Tesla clear enough beforehand on what the Supercharger system can be used for?

Some feel, perhaps a majority on this TMC thread, the context of their communications made it clear enough it was intended for enabling long-distance travel and perhaps secondarily situations where no other charging would be feasible - and at the end of the day, common sense, reasonable interpretation and/or manners should at the very least have made it clear enough. One argument being this is similar to free refills at lunch restaurant, you are expected to know the limits (i.e. during your meal, not the next day) without being explicitly told so.

Some feel, perhaps a minority on this TMC thread, Tesla used the generalized message of free Supercharging for life as a marketing tool, intentionally without limitations to strenghten the marketing message - and that Tesla sales people used the message liberally, thus creating the perception that Supercharging is not - either legally or morally - limited to any specific use. Some of these people feel e.g. the lunch refill argument does not apply, because Tesla made use of the implication that there are absolutely no limits, similar to a restaurant selling you a mug and saying come refill anytime.


Who would be comfortable with this summary and just agreeing to disagree on the last part? I know I am.
 
If you want to look at it in that light, I think it is more about long term EV adoption given the customer base moving from home owning suburb dwellers to apartment owning city dwellers. SCs were meant for travel and not the day to day power needs of the car's they support. It is as simple as that as it is plain to see that the SC model CAN NOT function if everyone is using it for all their daily charging needs.

The real question is how to we facilitate population wide EV adoption when a (good) percentage of the population does not have a garage to charge in?
Could Limited Residential Parking Put a Cap on EV Adoption? | PluginCars.com

If PEVs prices come down, there's enough room for significant demand growth, and then, I suggest that we'd begin to see municipalities address the on-street charging problem in a structured way. You need either a dedicated parking space, or a charger account that allows you to plug in at multiple chargers. I think the 2nd approach would be better as in the long term it would avoid encouraging car ownership in cities trying to encourage use of mass transit.
 
Then bring on G3 :)

djp,
Understand but free for life long distance travel for Model S can not be sacrificed (or at least not yet). I do not see Tesla involving itself in any type of billing scenario until they can out source it with G3 numbers. I really can not see it being worth their time or effort for MS and MX. Just look at how they have avoided the data billing question.
 
Is this number accurate? Where did you find it?

The number is accurate, but I think you might be misinterpreting it? (I didn't mean to imply that 5% of all Supercharging is used for road trips and 95% of Supercharging is used for other usage).

The number is from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMcJxA3lto#

Where Elon & JB mentioned that 95% of all charging are NOT done at SuperChargers. (i.e. 5% of all charging is done at SuperChargers).

And since polling here shows says that most people (94.28%) will comply by not using SuperChargers for local charging, and we break down the percentages, we can assign 4.71% to road trippers, and 0.286% to locals - at this point.

There's no reason to think that the % of road trippers will go up significantly - maybe it will go up to 6% or 7% as some of the more out-of-the-way roads get covered. However, the 0.286% of locals can go up significantly since it represents 100% usage by a small number of individuals right now.

Hence:

If you expand the general customer base by 5% you need 5% more SuperChargers.
If you expand that local-user base to 5%, you double the Supercharger requirement.
 
The real question is how to we facilitate population wide EV adoption when a (good) percentage of the population does not have a garage to charge in?

My city, 600k population, has mostly street side parking for residents. The city will install a public charging station on the sidewalk in front of your house if you request one. We currently have over 1200 public charging stations. This number is growing fast : only last december they had a big celebration for #1000. The network now covers the city quite well. For example, there are 4 different public charging stations within walking distance from my house. In 2014 all stations together delivered enough power to travel over 7 million electric kilometers, up from 2 million in 2013.
 
My city, 600k population, has mostly street side parking for residents. The city will install a public charging station on the sidewalk in front of your house if you request one. We currently have over 1200 public charging stations. This number is growing fast : only last december they had a big celebration for #1000. The network now covers the city quite well. For example, there are 4 different public charging stations within walking distance from my house. In 2014 all stations together delivered enough power to travel over 7 million electric kilometers, up from 2 million in 2013.

That's fantastic news! I love hearing about progress like this.

Locally, it was near impossible to find a public charging station when I drove into San Francisco (one available at a parking lot on the pier). Now there are hundreds to choose from - only a few years later.

I hope that a few years from now, what you report in your city today, is the norm.
 
What about people who choose not to install home charging equipment to reduce total cost of ownership even further?
Are they bona fide SC users or not? Who is to judge who should install their own EVSE and who are exempt to this obligation?

Apartment dwellers have the option to buy/rent a garage and install their own EVSE. Just because they have chosen to not invest into their own garage and charging spot, it is OK to suck free juice from SC?

In the U.S. at least you don't need to buy an EVSE as the UMC comes with the car. You only need a 240V outlet.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to look at it in that light, I think it is more about long term EV adoption given the customer base moving from home owning suburb dwellers to apartment owning city dwellers. SCs were meant for travel and not the day to day power needs of the car's they support. It is as simple as that as it is plain to see that the SC model CAN NOT function if everyone is using it for all their daily charging needs.

The real question is how to we facilitate population wide EV adoption when a (good) percentage of the population does not have a garage to charge in?

We need laws mandating that all new construction be done with some percentage of spots being at least made with conduits installed to put in wiring later. Especially for new condos and apartments. Also laws that prohibit current condos from stopping charging being installed if owner pays for installation and electricity.
 
If---

If Tesla is successful with the X. (Likely of course)
If Tesla starts to sell Model 3 in reasonable numbers (not necessarily 500K units per year, but 200K to be conservative)
If other manufacturers see the handwriting on the wall with the increased demand for BEV and their benefits and start manufacturing BEVs with 150+ mile range

Then I believe that public L3 charging will take care of itself, and we will see an explosion of Tesla-compatible (read no CHAdeMO) options for us in many public locations, so that locals who have no access to charging at home, or who do not wish to install charging facilities will be able to use regularly. Utilities may get heavily into the charging infrastructure game--a BEV owner could sign up for charging at a utility-owned charging station and have the electricity used charged to their home utility bills. They could even opt for time-of-use billing rates and charge during off-peak hours to save some bucks.

Tesla will be able to address any Supercharging by "locals" if/when this newer business model comes to pass.
 
The number is accurate, but I think you might be misinterpreting it? (I didn't mean to imply that 5% of all Supercharging is used for road trips and 95% of Supercharging is used for other usage).

The number is from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMcJxA3lto#

Where Elon & JB mentioned that 95% of all charging are NOT done at SuperChargers. (i.e. 5% of all charging is done at SuperChargers).

And since polling here shows says that most people (94.28%) will comply by not using SuperChargers for local charging, and we break down the percentages, we can assign 4.71% to road trippers, and 0.286% to locals - at this point.

There's no reason to think that the % of road trippers will go up significantly - maybe it will go up to 6% or 7% as some of the more out-of-the-way roads get covered. However, the 0.286% of locals can go up significantly since it represents 100% usage by a small number of individuals right now.

Hence:

If you expand the general customer base by 5% you need 5% more SuperChargers.
If you expand that local-user base to 5%, you double the Supercharger requirement.


Whew, thanks for breaking that down. So at the moment, only about 1/3 of 1% of us are jerks minus the number that don't have home charging options?

Again, excellent number breakdown, thank you.
 
Not true. Each Model 3 will have a much smaller absolute profit margin (from which to pull funds for the supercharging network) than a Model S / X, but each Model 3 will spend just as many hours charging there.
Again, I'm talking about a cost model of Tesla allocating $x/car to the supercharger network (and that number is $500, not the oft repeated $2000), the profit margin of the Model 3 vs S/X is irrelevant.

Perhaps 2% of S / X owners (in NA) are currently dependent on local supercharging for most of their charging. That percentage is likely to be significantly higher for the Model 3 (say 15%), though still not a majority. This percentage will climb for the Leaf as well, as it grows beyond its low-volume early adopter phase.
That is complete speculation (which neither of us can say). I can't say the exact percentage, but an EV still does not stand as a practical alternative to ICE cars for city drivers unless there are home charging options (either on the street, in public garages, and with laws that allow renters to install their own stations in apartment/condo spaces). The lower relative cost of the Model 3 doesn't change this.

Again, the relatively high S / X profit margin can afford a $500 / car expense for the Supercharger network. Model 3, much less so.
See first point.

More important to Tesla (and to many customers) will be to keep the base Model 3 sticker price down to their $35k target. Externalizing the supercharging cost out of the sticker price, even $500 per car, goes a very long way at that price point. Tesla will need to squeeze every penny to reach this target.
They can externalize the cost in the same way they did with the 60kWh: by making it optional. Again, I am not seeing any difference in the situation between that and a Model 3.

Because to apply the change to Model S / X would be to create two classes within their premium S /X brand, which would be far more confusing. If you want the luxury of meterless supercharging, buy the luxury model car. Simple.
The Model 3 is still a luxury/premium car. And I'm not advocating two classes within a model. I'm advocating two types of stations. There is no good reason why a city driver owning a Model S/X gets a free ride (getting roughly $5000 worth of electricity on Tesla's tab from a $500 allocation per car), while a Model 3 driver has to pay a per use fee (likely with an activation fee also). Keep in mind that while the Model S/X volume will be roughly 1/5 of Model 3, that's still a significant proportion of owners to give a free ride to.

Degrading how?
Do you agree or disagree that "free" supercharging for roadtrips is a very positive experience? If you agree (and I think you do given you label it as "luxury"), how is eliminating that option for Model 3 owners not degrading the ownership experience for them?

And free ride how? The majority of Model 3 owners would save significant money overall with the metered model. And Model S / X owners have paid a premium price for the privilege of un-metered supercharging.
My point was they haven't. They "paid" $500 per car by Tesla's accounting for the privilege of supercharging. If Tesla charges the same $2000 activation fee as the 60kWh and allocates the same $500 per car, then the Model 3 owner has paid the same amount for the privilege of supercharging.

The metered model for Model 3 would dramatically reduce supercharger abuse / overcrowding, which will lower Tesla's build-out costs (thereby enabling the aforementioned savings for Model 3 owners), and significantly improve the experience for everyone.
Metered model *only* for Model 3 will not reduce supercharger abuse/overcrowding enough, because it still does nothing to address Model S/X owners abusing the stations. Again, even at 1/5 of volume vs Model 3, Model S/X drivers doing this is still a major potential problem. As doenb pointed out with his math: if you expand that local-user base to 5%, you double the Supercharger requirement. The goal of any policy to address this must necessarily also address the Model S/X owners too or it is pointless.
 
The city will install a public charging station on the sidewalk in front of your house if you request one. We currently have over 1200 public charging stations.
Interesting idea. It is things like this that make me think Tesla's "city" superchargers are a stop gap measure. If EVs in general are to catch on city charging must be addressed in some way for the entire population.
 
In the U.S. at least you don't need to buy an EVSE as the UMC comes with the car. You only need a 240V outlet.

Of course in Europe it is even simpler, as not only does the UMC come with the car, the local equivalent of 240V outlet is basically every outlet on the continent - and depending a little on the country, many have them already outside of their houses or in parking lots too (although in practice some outlets might require lowering amps if they're for special purposes with "smaller" breakers). The basic 240V is of course not very high-amperage, I guess perhaps more akin to your hairdryer socket in capacity, so good for nightly charging at 12-13A... but it is still real charging, not a 110V trickle. Many houses and garages also readily have more industrial sockets, for which UMC has the appropriate swappable heads, that triple, quadruple that base charging speed.

These sockets that are prevalently available in Europe are not made for charging cars originally, but by happenstance the standard electricity infrastructure here is simply more suited to it on this base level (and this applied to most European countries, even though our sockets may differ a little from country to country). That said, I understand U.S. may enjoy an edge overall of HPWC "speed" potential for other reasons.

That said, personally I feel the qualifications discussed on who can legitimately charge locally at a Supercharger remain problematic, but I think that is best left at agreeing to disagree. :)
 
Again, I'm talking about a cost model of Tesla allocating $x/car to the supercharger network (and that number is $500, not the oft repeated $2000), the profit margin of the Model 3 vs S/X is irrelevant.

The $500/car doesn't materialize out of thin air; it comes out of the profit margins of the cars. (Unless supercharging is a separately-priced add-on.) Tesla can afford $500/car for the S / X because of the high profit margins. They will be much less able to afford $500/car for the base Model 3, unless Unlimited Supercharging is priced as an optional add-on (as it was for S60 owners).The question is whether Tesla would rather have in place a mechanism that discourages abuse and reduces overcrowding (i.e. metering), or one that encourages a free-for-all (current system). Perhaps they could offer it both ways: either $2k upfront for unlimited free SC, or else nothing upfront but $0.20/minute metered. Customers love choice, so this could be a win-win for Tesla. I suspect most Model 3 purchasers would happily opt into metered, rather than cough up the $2k upfront. You'd probably even get some disgruntled S60 owners wanting their $2k back!

The Model 3 is still a luxury/premium car. And I'm not advocating two classes within a model. I'm advocating two types of stations. There is no good reason why a city driver owning a Model S/X gets a free ride (getting roughly $5000 worth of electricity on Tesla's tab from a $500 allocation per car), while a Model 3 driver has to pay a per use fee (likely with an activation fee also). Keep in mind that while the Model S/X volume will be roughly 1/5 of Model 3, that's still a significant proportion of owners to give a free ride to.

It is _not_ a free ride. Tesla makes much more profit per Model S than per Model 3, enough to compensate for all but the grossest supercharger abusers. Model S buyers spend a ton more in the first place (vs buying a Model 3). It's like saying that passengers in First Class get a "free ride" with their 3-course meals, while passengers in coach are degraded by being asked to shell out an extra $10 for a sandwich.

Do you agree or disagree that "free" supercharging for roadtrips is a very positive experience? If you agree (and I think you do given you label it as "luxury"), how is eliminating that option for Model 3 owners not degrading the ownership experience for them?

I agree with you that unlimited free supercharging is a luxury. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it available as a $2k option for Model 3 buyers. I just don't think it's sustainable to include it in the $35k base price. Having a metered option alongside a $2k unlimited option would just give customers an extra choice, really.

Metered model *only* for Model 3 will not reduce supercharger abuse/overcrowding enough, because it still does nothing to address Model S/X owners abusing the stations. Again, even at 1/5 of volume vs Model 3, Model S/X drivers doing this is still a major potential problem. As doenb pointed out with his math: if you expand that local-user base to 5%, you double the Supercharger requirement. The goal of any policy to address this must necessarily also address the Model S/X owners too or it is pointless.

Well, you'd still have the problem of Model S owners living close to an already-established free supercharger. Adding a separate paid station won't really help this. (whether Tesla or 3rd-party.)

The profit margins on the S / X are high enough for Tesla to simply take the hit and build more superchargers as needed to offset the relatively small number of S / X abusers. But now that unlimited supercharging is baked into the S / X price, I don't see how Tesla can externalize it again. The Model 3 gives Tesla the opportunity to start over with a more sensible structure. Restricting the abuse problem to 1/5 of the fleet, after all, is a heck of a lot better than doing nothing!
 
Where Elon & JB mentioned that 95% of all charging are NOT done at SuperChargers. (i.e. 5% of all charging is done at SuperChargers).

I've posted this already in this thread but now that these numbers are presented I post it again.

Based on at least Finnish and Swedish Tesla web sites it looks like they are hoping that Supercharging will go up to 30%. That's what they use in gas savings calculations. I'm currently at about 60% :).
 
Last edited:
The $500/car doesn't materialize out of thin air; it comes out of the profit margins of the cars. (Unless supercharging is a separately-priced add-on.) Tesla can afford $500/car for the S / X because of the high profit margins. They will be much less able to afford $500/car for the base Model 3, unless Unlimited Supercharging is priced as an optional add-on (as it was for S60 owners).The question is whether Tesla would rather have in place a mechanism that discourages abuse and reduces overcrowding (i.e. metering), or one that encourages a free-for-all (current system). Perhaps they could offer it both ways: either $2k upfront for unlimited free SC, or else nothing upfront but $0.20/minute metered. Customers love choice, so this could be a win-win for Tesla. I suspect most Model 3 purchasers would happily opt into metered, rather than cough up the $2k upfront. You'd probably even get some disgruntled S60 owners wanting their $2k back!

Putting in a metering system would cost them far more than any electricity saved, not only for the cost but for the lost sales. Cost is a factor in perhaps 25% of the current Model S purchases. When Model III comes out it will be a factor in probably 75% of the purchases. It's a lose-lose situation.