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

[deonb]

Tesla seems to make the point current system is sustainable and the average use is $500/car.

This is not correct (I know this is what Tesla is filing with the SEC currently, but it's wrong).

The SuperCharger dashboard shows the average use per car is 500kWh/year. The accounting period of the Model S is 20 years. This means that the cost of electricity to Tesla has to be less than 5c/kWh in order to justify a $500/car reserve. That can't be.

For more detail, see:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ster-than-60kW?p=944393&viewfull=1#post944393


Bottom line: Tesla wasn't expecting as much SuperCharger use as they're getting right now.

 

[ksdprasad]

IMO, Supercharging is like paying $2K Insurance Premium (either it is part of the car price or additional purchased).

Most of the users do not use it very often, few use them for daily use. net-to-net not much of issue for Tesla in financial standpoint. "Insurance 101 : Spread/Share the risk"

once they start selling the supercharger network to other manufacturers, they make hell lot of money. That time Tesla doesn't even really care if you use it daily. all they care is if you keep the car plugged in after extended period of time in SC stall, they may come with some alternative plans to have that reduced.

 

[gnxs]

Many pages back I quoted another statement Elon made at the Shareholder meeting the other day regarding the SC network:

With regard to the economics of the SC Network, he said: "It's basically built into the cost of the car. And based on what we're seeing in terms of economics, it looks quite supportable".

 

[stopcrazypp]

That time Tesla doesn't even really care if you use it daily. all they care is if you keep the car plugged in after extended period of time in SC stall, they may come with some alternative plans to have that reduced.

Elon's statement contradicts that. If they don't care, they wouldn't be sending notices. The problem right now isn't big enough to break Tesla's bank, but Tesla is already seeing potential problems if people have the entitlement attitude. Given some people's response here, it is unfortunate to see that they will likely ignore those notices and insist they are in the "right".

With regard to the economics of the SC Network, he said: "It's basically built into the cost of the car. And based on what we're seeing in terms of economics, it looks quite supportable".

deonb did some math that shows the problem. If everyone followed Elon's suggestion, it is true that network as it is right now is sustainable. However, if just 5% of the Model S supercharger population decided to ignore that, that will require Tesla to double supercharger network. That 5% will also use 20x the supercharger electricity of the average Model S, and that will also double the spending of Tesla on electricity.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eiving-Notes?p=1040423&viewfull=1#post1040423

The crux of the problem is if even a relatively small portion of owners have this attitude, it will easily break Tesla's "free supercharger" model. Tesla's trying to nip it in the bud before it gets too far, but even they know they can't ignore the problem. From the poll results, it seems roughly half of people with the means to do so will follow Elon's suggestion, hopefully the official notices will be a bit more effective.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

...Compare it to April version which have for example these:

Yes it did.
Annnnnd... as the very definition of Supercharger, had on the very same page:

Using A Supercharger
What is a Supercharger and why is it unique?
A Supercharger is a charger capable of delivering up to 50% battery capacity to Model S in about 20 minutes (roughly 16 times faster than most public charging stations), enabling convenient long distance travel in Model S.


How much does it cost to use the Supercharger?
Supercharging is free for the life of Model S, once the Supercharger option is enabled.

"enabling convenient long distance travel in Model S."
NOT "lowering the electric bill of owners of Model S."
AND ALSO not "subsidizing the electric bill of owners of every future Tesla automobile."

I'm looking at you, David Noland.

 

[Skotty]

I'll just say this. I drive long distance A LOT. Every single week. If you don't like subsidizing my driving style, don't support the free Supercharger model, support a pay per use model. I'd be fine with pay per use. But until then, thanks for the free juice!

 

[AnxietyRanger]

SW2Fiddler: ...and that is negated by Tesla's urban superchargers in several countries for city dwellers.

Let's admit at least this - Tesla's message on this has been vague at best.

 

[Scotty]

When I purchased my Tesla, Superchargers were free, for life. No statement for long distance charging, although that clearly is the limiting factor for driving a Tesla away6 from your home base. What constitutes long distance driving? 100 miles? 60 miles? I do opportunity charging and expect to continue to do so. I beleive that I should be able to use a SC when it's available. If I think I need some juice, I stop and charge. I don't think I should forsake the extremely faster SC charging than other chargers, including ny ability to charge at home.

I am nopt abusing the SC network; I am using the best charger available for my Tesla. I didn't see any limitations when I ordered and picked up my MS. Why are these limitations coming to light now? If Elon is complaining about my $3 worth of electricity, then I'm not a fan of the change (or clarification) of the previously vague or unstated scope of Tesla's take on SC usage. If Tesla wants to charge me or limit me when using a SC, they will lose a fan and supporter.

I'm driving along, and see I'm close to a SC. Do I need to stop and think before plugging in, as to whether my charging willm cause Tesla to send me a notice, when I'm using a charger that was stated to be fast, free and forever? I don't remember there being 'but not for use within x# of miles from your home address'

Scotty

 

[SW2Fiddler]

SW2Fiddler: ...and that is negated by Tesla's urban superchargers in several countries for city dwellers.

Let's admit at least this - Tesla's message on this has been vague at best.

Hi, AR.
If by "negated" you mean "supplemented," and by "vague at best" you mean "simply stated to avoid bogging down in factual but complexly-parsed conditional answers to those just curious about how the new generation of electricars works," then you can count on my agreement.

I like your refreshing, crisp reply style by the way. Two lines! I'm a fan of this version of AR.

 

[Tedkidd]

This is not correct (I know this is what Tesla is filing with the SEC currently, but it's wrong).

The SuperCharger dashboard shows the average use per car is 500kWh/year. The accounting period of the Model S is 20 years. This means that the cost of electricity to Tesla has to be less than 5c/kWh in order to justify a $500/car reserve. That can't be.

IDK, present value of the future obligation of 500kwh/year x20 could well be less than 5¢ per kWh in their models. Remember, they'll be producing energy and storing energy at scale.

There is actually a pretty good chance their cost of energy will be $0. There is a good chance they are planning on these stations producing profit through demand and capacity services. As our energy system moves to distributed energy, the values that Tesla and Solar City bring to the grid will get ever greater value recognition.

For those interested in understanding more about this, do some searching on NY REV (Reforming the Energy Vision). This stuff may start changing really quickly...

- - - Updated - - -

It really is that simple. You have the right to not plug in at home and use the Superchargers as much as you want but that doesn't make it right or good etiquette. Or good for you even. If enough people come up with the same brilliant idea then you yourself will be blocked from charging when you really need it.

If you have 240V outlet in your garage regardless of the Amps it outputs you should plug in and at least reduce the amount of Supercharging you need at the Superchargers. If you forget and need to Supercharger then by all means use the Superchager. If your slow 13A can't keep up with your commute then please use the Supercharger or consider upgrading your home charging.

So many have put this so nicely, I almost want to go back and pick out the gems.

It's similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Two choices with three potential outcomes. It's really the difference between placing value on short or long term thinking. On social vs sociopathic behavior.

Those who look to the letter of the law without regard to intent tend to be narcissistic and sociopathic. Antisocial behavior of such personality types probably can't be corrected but may be moderated by creating generally accepted social norms with the potential of shaming for those who blatantly deviate.

This conversation is really important. What AnxietyRanger is doing in keeping it going is really important.

It is incumbent upon early adopters to think about, discuss, and crystalize what are acceptable codes of conduct because in so doing, they define and clarify the boundaries of acceptable social behavior for those who follow. Having these social rules can help prevent "tragedy of the commons" type events.

I suspect these norms may be very different in different areas of the globe due to vast differences in infrastructure. For example; people in China or Europe may need to rely more heavily on away from home charging than we do in the US.

 

[Ugliest1]

SW2Fiddler: ...and that is negated by Tesla's urban superchargers in several countries for city dwellers.

Let's admit at least this - Tesla's message on this has been vague at best.

As you stated many, many posts ago, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

SW2Fiddler's redefinitions of the "negate" and "vague" words... yeah, that I agree with.

 

[gnxs]

With regard to the economics of the SC Network, he said: "It's basically built into the cost of the car. And based on what we're seeing in terms of economics, it looks quite supportable".

deonb did some math that shows the problem. If everyone followed Elon's suggestion, it is true that network as it is right now is sustainable. However, if just 5% of the Model S supercharger population decided to ignore that, that will require Tesla to double supercharger network. That 5% will also use 20x the supercharger electricity of the average Model S, and that will also double the spending of Tesla on electricity.

So much conjecture based on lots of faulty, or at the very least unknown, assumptions. I'm going to speculate that Tesla has a better handle on it's business model and performance than folks on this forum.

I don't see any reason that the current pattern of SC usage will change until there is some shift on a macro level (the introduction of the Model 3 at massive volume perhaps). The outliers are already built into their business model and Tesla states it's currently supportable. I suspect charging pattern %'s will remain static for all the reasons mentioned here many times over......convenience of home charging vs. SC'ing (for the vast majority). Musk stated that "You know there are a few people are like, quite aggressively using it for local supercharging...........and we will um, sort of send them a reminder note that it's cool to do this occasionally, but it's meant to be a long distance thing".

Nothing in the actual message or the tone in which he delivered it led me to believe that Tesla's metrics showed any material surprises in SC usage patterns. He was even half-laughing when he mentioned the few people aggressively using it for local charging. Some people here think the sky is falling and I just don't see that being the case now or in the near-term. Unfortunately, if a few of the "aggressive local chargers" are in a small geographic area it might impact a particular SC location(s) effectiveness and I think that's why some folks might get a note, not because there is some system-wide problem.

 

[EchoDelta]

Not my point.
I am sure there is merit to your analysis but I find it akin to retail stores allowing for some shoplifting theft in their calculus. Just because it happens does not make it right.

I've tried to return to fundamental values when looking at this and other similar threads. SCs were needed (in the US) to remove the long distance travel barrier to EV adoption. Tesla has yielded to some of the calls for destination chargers as well in support of the long distance travel goal. People are now using SCs for local charging thus all these threads and Elon's comments.

The question here is what happens when we justify shoplifting? Once shoplifting is ok, how much of it breaks the bank? OBVIOUSLY local charging is not shoplifting but you get the point.

Strawman argument. The debate here is more about whether it actually is comparable to shoplifting or not. I don't think so, for example.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

When I purchased my Tesla, Superchargers were free, for life. No statement for long distance charging, although that clearly is the limiting factor for driving a Tesla away6 from your home base. What constitutes long distance driving? 100 miles? 60 miles? I do opportunity charging and expect to continue to do so. I beleive that I should be able to use a SC when it's available. If I think I need some juice, I stop and charge. I don't think I should forsake the extremely faster SC charging than other chargers, including ny ability to charge at home.

I am nopt abusing the SC network; I am using the best charger available for my Tesla. I didn't see any limitations when I ordered and picked up my MS. Why are these limitations coming to light now? If Elon is complaining about my $3 worth of electricity, then I'm not a fan of the change (or clarification) of the previously vague or unstated scope of Tesla's take on SC usage. If Tesla wants to charge me or limit me when using a SC, they will lose a fan and supporter.

I'm driving along, and see I'm close to a SC. Do I need to stop and think before plugging in, as to whether my charging willm cause Tesla to send me a notice, when I'm using a charger that was stated to be fast, free and forever? I don't remember there being 'but not for use within x# of miles from your home address'

I think yours is a fairly typical story of how Tesla's Supercharger was perceived, so I don't blame you.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi, AR.
If by "negated" you mean "supplemented," and by "vague at best" you mean "simply stated to avoid bogging down in factual but complexly-parsed conditional answers to those just curious about how the new generation of electricars works," then you can count on my agreement.

I like your refreshing, crisp reply style by the way. Two lines! I'm a fan of this version of AR.

How does your story of Superchargers being for long-distance only support the apartment dweller Superchargers built e.g. in London, which by Tesla's definition are meant for that? How do you explain the Schipol airport taxi fleet? I mean, these are not roadtrips. These are examples outside of Tesla's Supercharger page preamble.

Let's face it: the long-distance argument doesn't cover it all, nor is the topic simple at all. Because when we remove the long-distance only argument, which we must in the face of those examples and because Tesla never enforced or was limited to such, Tesla's communications become even more vague - because some local charging is OK, but there have been no clear lines or rules in the marketing which type is.

Even the quote from Elon was, occasional local charging is "cool".

There are no rules or limitations expressed from Tesla. That's what it boils down to. And that's why people have understood them differently. And that's why we have a debate.

- - - Updated - - -

It's similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Two choices with three potential outcomes. It's really the difference between placing value on short or long term thinking. On social vs sociopathic behavior.

Those who look to the letter of the law without regard to intent tend to be narcissistic and sociopathic. Antisocial behavior of such personality types probably can't be corrected but may be moderated by creating generally accepted social norms with the potential of shaming for those who blatantly deviate.

This conversation is really important. What AnxietyRanger is doing in keeping it going is really important.

It is incumbent upon early adopters to think about, discuss, and crystalize what are acceptable codes of conduct because in so doing, they define and clarify the boundaries of acceptable social behavior for those who follow. Having these social rules can help prevent "tragedy of the commons" type events.

I suspect these norms may be very different in different areas of the globe due to vast differences in infrastructure. For example; people in China or Europe may need to rely more heavily on away from home charging than we do in the US.

I think yours is a nice message.

I would only add one more angle:

It all applies to companies as well. If companies look only to the letter of the law or try to find loopholes in terms, instead of understanding and respecting what they stood for and what they promised, that too needs to be moderated - and potentially, as you put it, shamed in public, if need be. The checks and balances work in all directions and it is important that they do. For example, if one believes a company is trying to wiggle themselves out of existing commitments by subtly changing the terms over time, that might warrant a public response, lest it become the norm in society.

 

[Electroman]

If Elon is complaining about $3 worth of electricity, that is sacrilege. On the other if you complain about $3 ....

 

[deonb]

IDK, present value of the future obligation of 500kwh/year x20 could well be less than 5¢ per kWh in their models. Remember, they'll be producing energy and storing energy at scale.

There is actually a pretty good chance their cost of energy will be $0. There is a good chance they are planning on these stations producing profit through demand and capacity services. As our energy system moves to distributed energy, the values that Tesla and Solar City bring to the grid will get ever greater value recognition.

"I'm offsetting the cost of my current product by promising to make profit somewhere else with a hypothetical future product that I haven't created yet and don't know whether there is any market for", hasn't been a valid SEC filing since Enron.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Not my point.
I am sure there is merit to your analysis but I find it akin to retail stores allowing for some shoplifting theft in their calculus. Just because it happens does not make it right.

I've tried to return to fundamental values when looking at this and other similar threads. SCs were needed (in the US) to remove the long distance travel barrier to EV adoption. Tesla has yielded to some of the calls for destination chargers as well in support of the long distance travel goal. People are now using SCs for local charging thus all these threads and Elon's comments.

The question here is what happens when we justify shoplifting? Once shoplifting is ok, how much of it breaks the bank? OBVIOUSLY local charging is not shoplifting but you get the point.

Strawman argument. The debate here is more about whether it actually is comparable to shoplifting or not. I don't think so, for example.

Agreed that the comparison to shoplifting doesn't work. I would argue this is more like a store that promised you unlimited purchases for free, with a fixed-price. The only limitation being you can only have one basket (battery) you can fill - and only re-fill that after consumption. No other limits, the store markets this, gets lots of sales and then that store complains that some go to there store too often. But does not complain that some buyers never or rarely go there...

 

[Tedkidd]

"I'm offsetting the cost of my current product by promising to make profit somewhere else with a hypothetical future product that I haven't created yet and don't know whether there is any market for", hasn't been a valid SEC filing since Enron.

Actually both Tesla and Solar City business models are based on assumptions of significantly reducing costs. And fortunately both have not only been correct, they're estimates have been conservative.

Neither business would have worked if they assumed costs would remain fixed.

Not sure how you make the jump to fraud and Enron. You short Tesla or Solar City?

 

[deonb]

Actually both Tesla and Solar City business models are based on assumptions of significantly reducing costs. And fortunately both have not only been correct, they're estimates have been conservative. Neither business would have worked if they assumed prices would remain stable.

Not sure how you make the jump to Enron. You short Tesla or Solar City?

No. Hello? The context here is the SEC filing of $500 per car for Supercharger maintenance and operating costs. I'm saying that the SEC filing is wrong for this one line item.

Tesla makes $10'000k+ off every vehicle. They can in theory have every person charge $10'000 from the SuperCharger, and still make a profit. That still doesn't make the SEC filing of $500 correct. It was based on an assumption that Superchargers would be used a lot less than they are now. You can't reduce the cost of an item in one financial year with unrealized potential income from a future financial year.

This doesn't make Tesla's business strategy wrong. It makes their SEC filing wrong. They would either have to up the reserves in an upcoming quarter, or reduce Supercharger use.

[Edit] I referred to Enron because of their accounting errors (offsetting losses against future profits - actually worse, offsetting losses against mark to market treatment of future assets that haven't been constructed yet and some which never even got constructed), which led to SEC rule changes. I'm not saying that Tesla is going the direction of Enron.

 

[lolachampcar]

EchoDelta
There was a reason obviously was capitalized.
I also expect to be on the loosing end of this discussion as I am on personal injury (tort) law, prescription drug advertising, campaign finance, the Vatican and child abuse and a litany of other issues. We live in a democracy where a majority can be persuaded to do just about anything. I can not and I shale raise my children to think for themselves and live with the consequences of their decisions.
I take comfort in an engineering background where black is black and white is white. Sure, life is filled with greys but it is how you perceive and work with those shades of grey that define you.