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

[dsm363]

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.

If you have a 240V outlet in your garage then there really is no argument. You should at least be able to gain 50 miles over night. Sure if that's not enough stop at a Supercharger as much as you need to but to not even plug in just lazy.

 

[djp]

Having a metered option alongside a $2k unlimited option would just give customers an extra choice, really.

That model would be an economic disaster for Tesla , any owner who plans to use more than $2k of power would go for the fixed price and everyone else would choose the metered option. Tesla would lose the subsidy from owners who never use the system, while keeping the worst of the abusers.

Pay-per-use is the only model that makes economic sense long term. The billing system isn't that hard to set up, and they'll need to build one anyway for 3G/LTE subscriptions.

 

[electracity]

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.

I don't understand. The cars meter and report. It is just software.

- - - Updated - - -

That model would be an economic disaster for Tesla , any owner who plans to use more than $2k of power would go for the fixed price and everyone else would choose the metered option. Tesla would lose the subsidy from owners who never use the system, while keeping the worst of the abusers.

Pay-per-use is the only model that makes economic sense long term. The billing system isn't that hard to set up, and they'll need to build one anyway for 3G/LTE subscriptions.

I think the $2K one time charge for model 3 is probably O.K. if Tesla enforces limited local charging.

 

[scaesare]

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.

This is very interesting to hear... and I hope a harbinger of things to come as it pertains to how the need for home charging in a variety of situations can be addressed.

As I posted HERE, I suspect that one of Tesla's hopes is that many more avenues of "daily charging" will be available as time goes by, and the number of EV's on the road begins to force the issue...

Thanks for the input.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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).

It doesn't come out of profit margins, it is a fixed cost line item, which they can increase the absolute price directly to cover or set as a fixed cost option. For example the profit margin of a 60kWh is much lower than the P85D, but the allocation is the same $500/car. So profit margin is irrelevant in this model.

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!

I believe even in that case it will far more likely be $2k upfront vs $1k upfront + metered. The supercharger hardware/software costs Tesla money so they will likely recover that somehow (as they did with 60kWh).

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.

Again, the way the network costs are allocated is a fixed amount per car. My "degraded" remark is referring to a worse ownership experience, which you seem to agree is the case.

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.

The $2k option is all I'm asking for. For metered I think it makes more sense to have it only at city superchargers.

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!

I think paid stations in the worse affected areas will do far more to address the problem directly than completely ignoring 1/5 of the fleet (actually might be 1/4, since 500k might refer to total volume).

 

[dsm363]

I brought this up last year when this was talked about but calling city Superchargers something different. Someone called them CityChargers up thread would keep their promise. Any CityCharger would be a fee based system that auto charged your credit card and would only be in bigger cities. Any Supercharger in between major cities would still be free and unlimited.

 

[deonb]

It doesn't come out of profit margins, it is a fixed cost line item, which they can increase the absolute price directly to cover or set as a fixed cost option. For example the profit margin of a 60kWh is much lower than the P85D, but the allocation is the same $500/car. So profit margin is irrelevant in this model.

The $500 is an escrow amount that's being put aside per car for Supercharging operating & maintenance cost. This is an SEC requirement.

The electrical cost alone of providing Supercharging is higher than that. There's a thread on here about this - can't remember the title.

Can anybody else link to that perhaps? (The one where you take the large Supercharger monitor from Hawthorne, look at the number of charges per car & charge supplied, then extrapolated the results to the fleet as a whole).

 

[scaesare]

I brought this up last year when this was talked about but calling city Superchargers something different. Someone called them CityChargers up thread would keep their promise. Any CityCharger would be a fee based system that auto charged your credit card and would only be in bigger cities. Any Supercharger in between major cities would still be free and unlimited.

This is an idea worth exploring... it solves many things. Including the inequality that some feel when "a person in an urban area gets a 'free ride' just because they don't have a garage..."

 

[dsm363]

Agree. People in cities would be penalized in a sense but there is no good way to do this. They shouldn't charge more than the cost of electricity so it wouldn't be outrageous.

 

[Ben W]

That model would be an economic disaster for Tesla , any owner who plans to use more than $2k of power would go for the fixed price and everyone else would choose the metered option. Tesla would lose the subsidy from owners who never use the system, while keeping the worst of the abusers.

Pay-per-use is the only model that makes economic sense long term. The billing system isn't that hard to set up, and they'll need to build one anyway for 3G/LTE subscriptions.

$2k in the bank NOW for Tesla is worth a lot more to them than $3k or even $5k of metered revenue spread over the next ten years. Look at their $12k pre-bought battery option, for instance. I don't know their marginal cost of electricity, but I bet it's pretty low. $2k buys a LOT of electricity at Tesla's wholesale cost of (guessing) $0.10/kWh. (enough to drive 60k miles.) Only a small fraction of Tesla owners will supercharge more than that, even over the entire life of the car.

You're right that the billing system will be practically free for them to set up. The larger point is that Tesla will be shaving costs and profits like crazy to try to reach the $35k promised base price, so it's doubtful that price will include unlimited free supercharging. The three logical options then become: metered (per kWh), metered (per hour), or unmetered for upfront $2k. (Or a hybrid approach; e.g. $1k to enable cheaper metered access.) Metering per hour instead of per kWh would be much more effective at curbing abuse. Unmetered does nothing to curb abuse, and actually encourages it.

 

[scanred_x]

I thought he was quite clear: Supercharging is intended for long-distance travel, some people are abusing it (it's fine to charge locally occasionally), and those who do abuse it will receive a friendly note reminding them of the intended use.

perfect--- +1

 

[Ben W]

It doesn't come out of profit margins, it is a fixed cost line item, which they can increase the absolute price directly to cover or set as a fixed cost option. For example the profit margin of a 60kWh is much lower than the P85D, but the allocation is the same $500/car. So profit margin is irrelevant in this model.

They can't increase the absolute price directly for the base Model 3; they're stuck at $35k unless they want to break that promise. That forces them into either a metered system or a fixed-cost option for the Model 3. I'm curious, is $500/car also allocated for S60 vehicles purchased without supercharging access? I'm guessing not.

I believe even in that case it will far more likely be $2k upfront vs $1k upfront + metered. The supercharger hardware/software costs Tesla money so they will likely recover that somehow (as they did with 60kWh).

With a metered system, there will be less abuse, thus Tesla could build out fewer superchargers while still meeting demand. This could save them more money than they would recoup from the upfront $1k or $2k for unlimited.

Again, the way the network costs are allocated is a fixed amount per car. My "degraded" remark is referring to a worse ownership experience, which you seem to agree is the case.

It varies per owner. If I plan to supercharge rarely, then occasional metered charging (knowing that I saved $2k upfront) will be a better ownership experience for me. The same goes for the $10 sandwich on the airplane, knowing I saved $1000 by flying coach instead of first class.

 

[brianman]

I brought this up last year when this was talked about but calling city Superchargers something different. Someone called them CityChargers up thread would keep their promise. Any CityCharger would be a fee based system that auto charged your credit card and would only be in bigger cities. Any Supercharger in between major cities would still be free and unlimited.

I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee at "CityChargers" when travelling long-distance if that was necessary to ensure that "locals" were financially disincented from clogging up both CityChargers and Superchargers in the quest for "free".

- - - Updated - - -

Look at their $12k pre-bought battery option, for instance.

You mean the thing that doesn't really exist that I wanted to buy 2 years ago?

- - - Updated - - -

They can't increase the absolute price directly for the base Model 3; they're stuck at $35k unless they want to break that promise. That forces them into either a metered system or a fixed-cost option for the Model 3.

My recollection is Tesla has indicated that future vehicles (ModelX and beyond) would be compatible with supercharging but they have said nothing about what it costs to install the technology (hardware), support the technology (software), or enable the technology (up-front purchase, subscription, pay-per-use) etc. As such, it's a bit premature to saying anything about base price of Model 3 in relation to supercharging costs to customers -- much less Tesla's budgeting for the supercharging system w/r/t to Model 3.

 

[Ben W]

You mean the thing that doesn't really exist that I wanted to buy 2 years ago?

Here's Tesla's blog post from 2013 detailing the Model S battery replacement program: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase

Text: "We have received many requests for a Battery Replacement Option. We are happy to now offer this option for all three battery variants. This option will provide you a new battery anytime after the end of the eighth year at a fixed price. Prices are as follows: $8,000 for the 40 kWh battery, $10,000 for the 60 kWh battery, and $12,000 for the 85 kWh battery. You will be able to purchase this additional option through your MyTesla page in the near future."

As far as I know, they've never officially walked back on this. But I believe it's only available at the time of purchase of the car, or within a short (e.g. 90-day) window. It was certainly available when I took delivery of my S, though I didn't opt into it.

My recollection is Tesla has indicated that future vehicles (ModelX and beyond) would be compatible with supercharging but they have said nothing about what it costs to install the technology (hardware), support the technology (software), or enable the technology (up-front purchase, subscription, pay-per-use) etc. As such, it's a bit premature to saying anything about base price of Model 3 in relation to supercharging costs to customers -- much less Tesla's budgeting for the supercharging system w/r/t to Model 3.

Tesla has repeatedly promised that the base Model 3 will cost $35k before subsidies. In any universe, that will be an incredibly difficult target for them to meet. Saving ~$500 per car (guess) by excluding unlimited supercharging from the base price seems like an obvious and necessary step on their part.

 

[abasile]

Advertising that Tesla vehicles enable "free long distance travel" remains great marketing, in my opinion, and I'd really hate to see that have to change.

But I agree with others that as the Model 3 ships in volume, Tesla will unfortunately have to tighten their Supercharging policies for new vehicles. To keep SCs available for long distance travel, they'll have to reserve the right to charge for "local" SC use.

As a mountain dweller, I sort of hope that when such a policy is implemented and particular SCs are deemed to be "local" to particular owners, elevation changes and actual road distances will be accounted for. The closest SC to our home is about 40 miles away by road, but it's about 1500m / 5000' lower in elevation and will probably be needed on the return leg of many medium to long distance trips.

On the other hand, if Tesla were to charge us a reasonable per-kWh or per-minute price to use this particular SC, that would be okay. We are already paying more than the price of gasoline to charge our LEAF away from home every time we take it on a regional trip. Starting each regional trip with 200+ miles of home-charged electrons, as opposed to only 60 miles of range, will certainly change the balance!

 

[brianman]

Here's Tesla's blog post from 2013 detailing the Model S battery replacement program: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase

Text: "We have received many requests for a Battery Replacement Option. We are happy to now offer this option for all three battery variants. This option will provide you a new battery anytime after the end of the eighth year at a fixed price. Prices are as follows: $8,000 for the 40 kWh battery, $10,000 for the 60 kWh battery, and $12,000 for the 85 kWh battery. You will be able to purchase this additional option through your MyTesla page in the near future."

As far as I know, they've never officially walked back on this. But I believe it's only available at the time of purchase of the car, or within a short (e.g. 90-day) window. It was certainly available when I took delivery of my S, though I didn't opt into it.

I'm well aware of the page. There was never a way to sign up, opt-in, etc. It's yet another thing in the list of "stuff that it seems I dreamed up" that Tesla announced/promised but haven't delivered.

If there was a way to sign up, I would have. Perhaps on both vehicles.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla has repeatedly promised that the base Model 3 will cost $35k before subsidies. In any universe, that will be an incredibly difficult target for them to meet. Saving ~$500 per car (guess) by excluding unlimited supercharging from the base price seems like an obvious and necessary step on their part.

You're assuming there is subtraction required. I guess it depends what you're comparing with. I'm comparing with the S60 that was originally offered that did not come with supercharging; thus there is no subtraction of a guess number involved. Just compare S60 with a theoretical M3 @ $35K and try to identify where they are cutting costs -- supercharging is unrelated until/unless they announce supercharging hardware/software/usage/anything as "included" or "standard equipment" for M3.

- - - Updated - - -

Advertising that Tesla vehicles enable "free long distance travel" remains great marketing, in my opinion, and I'd really hate to see that have to change.

With the unqualified phrasing "Tesla vehicles" the standard interpretation is "all Tesla vehicles". They already can't say this because the Roadster doesn't support it.

 

[neroden]

Just restrict people to (say) 200 Supercharger charges per year. I don't think that would bother most people, but it would eliminate daily usage.

Anyone who bought the car in reliance on the former "customers can use the Superchargers as much as they like" statements on the website, of course, has to be allowed to do so.

Or start charging for parking at the lots containing the Superchargers. Charging's still free for life, y'know? (Might go over better in those parts of the country where nearly all parking is for-pay.)

 

[supratachophobia]

perfect--- +1

This is what I gathered from the comment as well.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Agree. People in cities would be penalized in a sense but there is no good way to do this. They shouldn't charge more than the cost of electricity so it wouldn't be outrageous.

For the record, I live in a city, so I will be paying this metered cost if I ever use superchargers locally, but I would happily pay it. At the same time, I hope to have the supercharger option remain free for road trips across all models.

- - - Updated - - -

You're assuming there is subtraction required. I guess it depends what you're comparing with. I'm comparing with the S60 that was originally offered that did not come with supercharging; thus there is no subtraction of a guess number involved. Just compare S60 with a theoretical M3 @ $35K and try to identify where they are cutting costs -- supercharging is unrelated until/unless they announce supercharging hardware/software/usage/anything as "included" or "standard equipment" for M3.

You put it better than I did. The S60 is a great counterexample to show the whole profit margin/bundled thing doesn't really apply.

- - - Updated - - -

They can't increase the absolute price directly for the base Model 3; they're stuck at $35k unless they want to break that promise. That forces them into either a metered system or a fixed-cost option for the Model 3. I'm curious, is $500/car also allocated for S60 vehicles purchased without supercharging access? I'm guessing not.

I don't see how the option thing really contradicts the point (see brianman's point, don't want to rehash) The $500/car *is* allocated to the S60 even without supercharger option (the math works out to all Model S sold, not just a fraction) from what I can tell. The reason probably is because a S60 owner can activate the supercharger option at anytime and it makes the accounting easier.

With a metered system, there will be less abuse, thus Tesla could build out fewer superchargers while still meeting demand. This could save them more money than they would recoup from the upfront $1k or $2k for unlimited.

I have no objections to metered option as long as there is also an upfront option. However, I still don't think it will solve the supercharger congestion problem if we ignore Model S owners. The Hong Kong stations are heavily congested right now with just Model S owners, which kind of shows that the city superchargers aren't a long term sustainable solution with the current Model.

It varies per owner. If I plan to supercharge rarely, then occasional metered charging (knowing that I saved $2k upfront) will be a better ownership experience for me. The same goes for the $10 sandwich on the airplane, knowing I saved $1000 by flying coach instead of first class.

The thing is I don't think you will save $2000 upfront, given the way Tesla is accounting things. You will only save $500 upfront and the rest of the cost will pay for the hardware/software. That will make the appeal far less for a metered option.

 

[TexasEV]

I really doubt Tesla would ever institute a payment scheme for supercharging. But if it does, it could use the "metered option" literally as in this U.S. patent 726548 from 1903, issued to General Electric:

"To facilitate the charging of storage batteries mounted on electrically-propelled vehicles, it is desirable to provide along the public highways or at points convenient of access for such vehicles means for charging the storage batteries. Public stations of this kind for the supply of electric energy are known as electrants. Several arrangements have been proposed for governing the electric connection between the service-mains of the supply system and the battery carried by the vehicle. It is the object of my invention to provide a simple and effective means guarding against the unauthorized use or purloining of current and still permitting a cabman to obtain a supply of current by the deposit of a coin or token or by the use of an authorized key furnished by the supply company...

My invention contemplates the delivery of current to two classes of vehicles. The first class embodies vehicles in which prepayment mechanism is installed within the vehicle, and my invention contemplates the supply to vehicles of this kind of a special key by which direct access may be gained to the electrant, the prepayment or coin-control mechanism being within a locked box on the vehicle itself. Such a kind of service is desirable, as it will permit a cabman to detach his plug at any time from the electrant irrespective of the amount of current he has taken, and at his leisure he may again effect the connection with another electrant until the full amount of the charge for which he has paid through the prepayment apparatus on his vehicle shall have been delivered. The other class of vehicles may gain access to prepayment devices in the electrant by use of a connecting-plug by means of which the outer door may be released, exposing the prepayment apparatus, after which by deposit of a coin connection may be automatically established. I provide a locked door which none but a cabman may open, in which are mounted insulated studs or contacts connecting with a release-magnet for a lock, which may be energized by the residual charge of the battery on a visiting vehicle, the magnet being wound so as to require approximately eighty volts to release the lock. In order to prevent the fraudulent use of current after the current has been rendered accessible, I provide devices insuring the locking of the door before a vehicle can leave the electrant, thereby preventing any but pay customers gaining access to the device. The amount of current delivered may be controlled in any suitable manner by means of a meter or other similar device, the key customers having a prepayment device mounted on their vehicles by which connection may be made with any number of plugs or electrants until the value of the deposited coin has been delivered in current, thus permitting them to take a limited supply and quickly disconnect their attachment from the electrant to answer the call of a fare, if necessary."