Supercharging Nightmare Begins

[gnuarm]

Tesla's Mission Statement must be referenced when determining what benefits Tesla:

This mission does not require Tesla itself to survive. In fact, Musk readily admitted years ago on 60 Minutes that he never expected Tesla to survive. It's the mission that was (and still is) the most important -- not Tesla:

Your interpretations of statements is irrelevant in the context of the real world. In the US all for-profit stock corporations have as their primary purpose to make profit for the stock holders. So the mission statement is not the prime directive. Even if you make a case that this is not valid, the practical aspects are that the stockholders and board actually run the company, not Elon. How many stock holders will vote to support actions that destroy their investment???

I'm an investor in TSLA -- and have been for a long time. But I knew going in what their Mission Statement was because they told us what it was. It was not about Tesla at all -- let alone about making Tesla look good or worse, to use your words. If Porsche brings EVs to market faster because they can use Tesla's fast charger network, that accords with Tesla's Mission Statement -- as a fact -- no opinion or agreement required.

*Tesla’s mission statement was “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport.” However, in mid-2016, under Elon Musk’s leadership, the company changed the corporate mission to “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”

This is largely the same as the first point. Those words are irrelevant from the profit and shareholder perspective. Additionally, if the company ceases to exist, how can it further impact anything? So self destruction is not on the roadmap. Porsche is not a company that will destroy Tesla since their sales are lower volume, high end autos. But the larger manufacturers can very well be the death of Tesla if they get an early leg up on the charging issue.

 

[gnuarm]

@Canuck

Tesla has a responsibility to survive for the employees and families.

Elon has also said that sustainable transport needs to be profitable transport.

Elon is being theatrical when he said he doesn’t care if Tesla dies or that they were close to death.

1+ to everything you wrote except for Tesla being close to death. They still aren't out of the woods yet. They are making a profit which many seem to think means all is well. But they have bonds to pay off and will need to secure new bonds, start new assembly lines, bring new autos to market, lather, rinse, repeat. The fact that they pulled it off once doesn't mean they can continue to make it work as the market matures. From here on out they need to work like they know what they are doing.... Do they?

 

[gnuarm]

@Canuck

TSLA takes up an unhealthy and disproportionate percentage of my investable funds.

I follow developments closely but not to the point of being able to pull out everything he’s said down to the exact linkable tweet or article on a moments notice.

There’s a lot to respond to but I’ll start with the easy debunk that Tesla was 9 weeks or less from insolvency.

1.) They still have S and X sales which is revenue which would slow down the rate of cash burn.
2.) They can raise capital if they wanted to. Won’t means can’t.
3.) Elon can personally prop up Tesla if needed leveraging his own assets and other companies if it came down to it.

Lastly, Tesla wouldn’t be handing out pitty checks over 3P gate if they really couldn’t afford it.

Not looking to argue, but these statements are not largely correct. The massive losses Tesla was suffering was in spite of the S and X sales. They were down to about 2 quarters of cash left. Yes, they could have sought short term loans and other means of financing, but it would have been very expensive at that point because of the much higher risk of repayment. That added cost to the company would have been yet another drain on finances. This still isn't over. They are far from out of the woods.

Lastly, Elon doesn't have enough assets to pull Tesla out if the model 3 had failed in some major way and they had not been able to sell cars for another few quarters.

All that said, it would have taken a lot of "failure" for the model 3 production to have fallen short to the point of bringing down the company rapidly. But the jury is still out on the continued sales of this vehicle. We can see how they do going into the new year.

 

[gnuarm]

I didn't know that was what they were doing with their converter. You are right of course that two opposite phase circuits can accomplish the same thing.

One thing to consider is that all the plugs in a typical garage are probably on the same circuit. So you will need some long extension cords strung to somewhere else in the house to find a circuit with opposite phase.

You are absolutely correct. But in commercial settings they often run 240 through the outlet string tapping into the opposite phase at each outlet in an attempt to balance the load on the two phases. At least I was told this once when I found the two sockets on a single outlet had opposite phases in our office space.

If you want to go cheap, you can accomplish the same thing by getting two extension cords and chopping the female end off each. Hook the hot (black) wire of each extension cord to one leg of your home charger input. Put wire nuts on the unused neutral (white) leads. Hook both grounds (green) to the ground lug on the home charger. Now go searching for two opposite phase plugs around the house.

Yep, absolutely correct again, except I wouldn't tie the two neutrals together. If a neutral line opens up somewhere this might be the only path for that circuit with a much longer run, seeming to be ok, but potentially higher voltage drop, etc. I'd just wire nut each one separately.

You can see what circuits are on what phase in the panel... If you've ever had your panel open and know how the breakers tap into the rails... and know which circuits your outlets are on. Sometimes they surprise you. lol

 

[MXWing]

All that said, it would have taken a lot of "failure" for the model 3 production to have fallen short to the point of bringing down the company rapidly. But the jury is still out on the continued sales of this vehicle. We can see how they do going into the new year.

Tesla spending a lot of money to deliver the cars right now. It can’t be good for the pocket book with all the overtime, rework and inefficiencies for a full court press.

It’s understandable to do this so as many people can get the 7500 credit as possible.

Next year, Tesla can focus on shipping to countries that are untapped and does not have anything like our Federal credit.

Slowing down production ramp will allow them to make more per car even if less is sold. When I mean slow down, I think cars produced is good to rise it just won’t be as exponential as July 2017 until now.

I also don’t believe a Bolt being 3750 cheaper is going to be that much of an impact.

Model 3 is competitive with every other car in its segment regardless of subsidies.

 

[Canuck]

Your interpretations of statements is irrelevant in the context of the real world.

"Real world" requires the courts to interpret Mission Statements should there be a dispute as to corporate governance. You're the one who is not living in the real world if you don't know that.

In the US all for-profit stock corporations have as their primary purpose to make profit for the stock holders.

Not all -- and profit need not be the primary purpose. That's been litigated by shareholders and the argument was made as you made it, and it was found to be wrong and against public policy. You need to read the leading court cases that decided this issue to understand the issues at play. Capitalism works best with justified and proper restraints, even if it means a company fails since the overall system is better when one does not seek profit at the expense of all else. There can be higher, or more noble, goals, even in for-profit companies and we (as a society) should promote higher causes, not restrain it, as you argue for, in a losing cause, because it's been decided.

How many stock holders will vote to support actions that destroy their investment???

Again, you ask a question without looking at the laws that answer it. It's also clear that you were not following Tesla when Musk made its patents free to use, and many shareholders argued exactly your statement above, that it would "destroy their investment". It seems to me that you need to do some research, then come back, since the real world is waiting. You might even find out that Tesla's Mission Statement, that you claim is not "in the context of the real world", had something to say about deciding this issue.

Do you think Musk writes, and revises, Tesla's Mission Statement for fun -- in an alternate reality? Or does he do it for the reality of making patents free in an "everything for profit" world, and to counter arguments like you make, saying I don't live in the real world?

 

[gnuarm]

"Real world" requires the courts to interpret Mission Statements should there be a dispute as to corporate governance. You're the one who is not living in the real world if you don't know that.



Not all -- and profit need not be the primary purpose. That's been litigated by shareholders and the argument was made as you made it, and it was found to be wrong and against public policy. You need to read the leading court cases that decided this issue to understand the issues at play. Capitalism works best with justified and proper restraints, even if it means a company fails since the overall system is better when one does not seek profit at the expense of all else. There can be higher, or more noble, goals, even in for-profit companies and we (as a society) should promote higher causes, not restrain it, as you argue for, in a losing cause, because it's been decided.

Not correct. There are any number of cases where this principle was applied. Company officers have a fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. Besides, that's only relevant in cases where companies are controlled by an individual while there are minority share holders. As I pointed out, no investor is going to support a CEO who wishes to tank a company. Losing market share to big iron is not a "higher cause" in any respect, especially if it costs you an entire company.

Again, you ask a question without looking at the laws that answer it. It's also clear that you were not following Tesla when Musk made its patents free to use, and many shareholders argued exactly your statement above, that it would "destroy their investment". It seems to me that you need to do some research, then come back, since the real world is waiting. You might even find out that Tesla's Mission Statement, that you claim is not "in the context of the real world", had something to say about deciding this issue.

If the Tesla patents are free to use, who is using them? Protecting a patent is an expensive process. Many companies have literal armies of lawyers to defend their patent portfolio for what purpose? To keep others from using them... no, mostly they trade patents. Tesla has nearly all the useful ones so there's nothing much to gain by trading them.

Do you think Musk writes, and revises, Tesla's Mission Statement for fun -- in an alternate reality? Or does he do it for the reality of making patents free in an "everything for profit" world, and to counter arguments like you make, saying I don't live in the real world?

Actually, yes, much of what Elon Musk does at Tesla and in his other companies is literally for fun! Haven't you figured that out? Why do you think he torpedoed the company in the violent stock market shakeup from the tweet "funding secured"? He never intended to go private. It was Elon having fun with the shorts. Elon is one of the most ego driven CEOs I've ever seen. It wasn't enough to build a custom car for Elon, he had to have a custom car company!

 

[gnuarm]

Tesla spending a lot of money to deliver the cars right now. It can’t be good for the pocket book with all the overtime, rework and inefficiencies for a full court press.

It’s understandable to do this so as many people can get the 7500 credit as possible.

What? The production race is not about the government subsidy. If that were the case they would have slow peddled last quarter to put the 200,000 mark into the first day of Q4, then the $7500 rebate would last through Q1!

It's about making big bucks so the company can survive.

Next year, Tesla can focus on shipping to countries that are untapped and does not have anything like our Federal credit.

Maybe they have expired, but I thought Norway had significant subsidies, no? That is why EVs sell so well there.

Slowing down production ramp will allow them to make more per car even if less is sold. When I mean slow down, I think cars produced is good to rise it just won’t be as exponential as July 2017 until now.

That is mostly because they can't ramp production in that way. In fact, they seem to be stuck short of even 5,000 a week.

I also don’t believe a Bolt being 3750 cheaper is going to be that much of an impact.

Model 3 is competitive with every other car in its segment regardless of subsidies.

Yes, I agree, in many ways the Bolt is a loser. Not that the car is crap... just GM wanted to be first to market, but without a charging solution. I literally chased the Chevy dealer around asking for info when the started shipping. Eventually they could talk to me, but when I asked about charging the salesman dropped down a gear and didn't have much to say. "Charging happens" is about the reply I got.

Mostly the model 3 is competitive because you can take it on trips. A 200 mile range just isn't enough for that (if you want to enjoy driving that is). While the standard range model 3 may sell in higher volumes than the long range, I think that will be because the long range version will be selling in lower volumes before too long. $50,000+ is a lot to pay for a car. The people interested in the long range models with $1,000 reservations will have bought all they want pretty soon. Then demand will be limited to those who are still currently making up their minds. Once they start selling the $35,000 model the remaining reservations will be exercised and demand will drop to a rate that Tesla will need to live with as they prepare to introduce the Y and the pickup. The fun is not yet over. The shorts may still win!

 

[Chatterbox]

I had my first-ever charging wait today (Vancouver, BC downtown charger). Only 3 of 8 cars were 3s, and I was the second in line when I arrived. Even at an hour average charging time per car, 8 Teslas randomly arriving into the 8 charging stalls should have made it about a 15-minute wait for me, being second in line.

It was over a half hour. Another driver arrived after me and then tried to cut in line. Thankfully the furor woke up a number of people who then decided they had enough. Four cars pulled out all at the same time. Interesting behaviour.

OK, so now I support Tesla's decision to charge for charging. It will make it more civilized, I hope, with fewer people taking advantage of a freebie often for no particularly good reason.

 

[gnuarm]

I had my first-ever charging wait today (Vancouver, BC downtown charger). Only 3 of 8 cars were 3s, and I was the second in line when I arrived. Even at an hour average charging time per car, 8 Teslas randomly arriving into the 8 charging stalls should have made it about a 15-minute wait for me, being second in line.

It was over a half hour. Another driver arrived after me and then tried to cut in line. Thankfully the furor woke up a number of people who then decided they had enough. Four cars pulled out all at the same time. Interesting behaviour.

OK, so now I support Tesla's decision to charge for charging. It will make it more civilized, I hope, with fewer people taking advantage of a freebie often for no particularly good reason.

I have to say I don't get why people think the free nature of charging is much of a factor in Supercharger use. What part of the above scenario was due to the charging being free?

 

[teethdood]

I have to say I don't get why people think the free nature of charging is much of a factor in Supercharger use. What part of the above scenario was due to the charging being free?

Perhaps because local people want to "top off" to whatever percentage (80-90%?) versus road-trip people who just want to charge enough to move on to the next SC? If it's free, since I'm there already, just top it off by lingering longer. That explains the 4 people moving off at the same time. They didn't really need those extra few %s.

 

[gnuarm]

Perhaps because local people want to "top off" to whatever percentage (80-90%?) versus road-trip people who just want to charge enough to move on to the next SC? If it's free, since I'm there already, just top it off by lingering longer. That explains the 4 people moving off at the same time. They didn't really need those extra few %s.

Ok, I get what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. I can't see how being at a charger getting free juice is going to make me want to stay while the charging rate is getting slower when I can come back tomorrow when it will still be free, but faster.

Your 4 people moving off at the same time shows they may not have needed the extra charging, but it doesn't say anything about it having been free or not.

 

[Saghost]

My belief is that one day Tesla will get to CCS everywhere. They have already committed to do this in the Europe including updating the Superchargers. And doing it in the US would streamline their manufacturing. They can still give Tesla owners benefits like free charging at Tesla branded CCS chargers to set Tesla apart from the other manufactures.

Don't forget, the EU CCS move is largely mandated by EU law. Tesla is promising a CCS2 adapter there for S and X owners, so I think we'll see a CCS1 version of it here some time after that shows up.

I don't think that the EU mandated change to CCS2 means anything for Tesla's long term plans in the US for charging cables.

 

[teethdood]

Ok, I get what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. I can't see how being at a charger getting free juice is going to make me want to stay while the charging rate is getting slower when I can come back tomorrow when it will still be free, but faster.

Your 4 people moving off at the same time shows they may not have needed the extra charging, but it doesn't say anything about it having been free or not.

Why would any local without a home charger want to go back the next day to charge some more if they can just stay there and hog for a few (20-30 minutes) minutes longer? It's not like the SC is right around the corner. Even if you live in a city with a SC, chances are you'd still have to drive 10 min to get there, then line up to charge, then drive back another 10 min. That's what a local without a home charger would do. Hog it until they get their full charge (full as in 80-90% SOC) even though it gets slower and slower as you go higher.

If you have your own home charger, you wouldn't give a crap about the free juice because said free juice isn't worth that much compared to time wasted. You'd charge enough to get to the next SC or to your house and that's it.

 

[Peteski]

Mostly the model 3 is competitive because you can take it on trips. A 200 mile range just isn't enough for that (if you want to enjoy driving that is). While the standard range model 3 may sell in higher volumes than the long range, I think that will be because the long range version will be selling in lower volumes before too long. $50,000+ is a lot to pay for a car. The people interested in the long range models with $1,000 reservations will have bought all they want pretty soon. Then demand will be limited to those who are still currently making up their minds. Once they start selling the $35,000 model the remaining reservations will be exercised and demand will drop to a rate that Tesla will need to live with as they prepare to introduce the Y and the pickup. The fun is not yet over. The shorts may still win!

That's exactly what the "shorts" said about the Model S in 2012 and yet demand has remained strong throughout it's 6 year life. I think Tesla will have no problem whatsoever selling all the M3s it can churn out for at least the next 2-3 years. Remember they haven't even supplied a single car to Europe or the Far East at this point. Even if they didn't sell a single car in the US for the next 12 months, I'm sure they could still sell all their production capacity to the ROW. For all those people who put down a deposit on the M3 in the last few years, there will be many more who will be willing to order when they can get a car delivered within a couple of months or off inventory. In reality, new model reservations are just the tip of the demand iceberg. It's not even like there's any direct like-for-like competition in sight over the next year.

 

[Peteski]

No, all I'm saying is that if ALL Tesla owners did ALL their charging on Superchargers then we would be lining up around the block to charge our cars.

Those people, like the OP, who are unable to charge at home should seriously consider whether or not to buy an EV right now or at least suck up the inconvenience of having to wait in turn to charge at an SC instead of complaining about Model 3s using them!

I'm wondering which part of this ^ you "disagree" voters don't get? I thought my point about lining up for SCs was already a thing for the OP and my lower point is just some pragmatic advice! Disagree away, but if you are relying on SCs for 100% of your charging needs then prepare yourselves for some sitting around at SCs.

 

[jboy210]

I have to say I don't get why people think the free nature of charging is much of a factor in Supercharger use. What part of the above scenario was due to the charging being free?

I can only speak for myself. But, if the free aspect where not there, I would be less inclined to stop at Superchargers when I had enough charge to get home. Several times I have been 50 miles from home with over 100+ miles remaining and stopped just because it was convenient AND free to top-off.

 

[gnuarm]

Why would any local without a home charger want to go back the next day to charge some more if they can just stay there and hog for a few (20-30 minutes) minutes longer? It's not like the SC is right around the corner. Even if you live in a city with a SC, chances are you'd still have to drive 10 min to get there, then line up to charge, then drive back another 10 min. That's what a local without a home charger would do. Hog it until they get their full charge (full as in 80-90% SOC) even though it gets slower and slower as you go higher.

If you have your own home charger, you wouldn't give a crap about the free juice because said free juice isn't worth that much compared to time wasted. You'd charge enough to get to the next SC or to your house and that's it.

Right! Now you get it. It isn't about the superchargers being free.

I still don't agree about the slower and slower part. You don't know how far anyone has to drive to use this charger. The last part of a 100% charge gets very slow taking a half hour or so. That's a good reason to drive off. Who needs 100% charge or even a 90% charge if they can come back next time and charge at 300+ mph again instead of getting that last drop at 30 mph.

 

[gnuarm]

Don't forget, the EU CCS move is largely mandated by EU law. Tesla is promising a CCS2 adapter there for S and X owners, so I think we'll see a CCS1 version of it here some time after that shows up.

I don't think that the EU mandated change to CCS2 means anything for Tesla's long term plans in the US for charging cables.

We will see a CCS1 version of what exactly? Chargers? I doubt that. Adapters? Maybe, but that would only be if CCS1 chargers become common here. So far I think I have actually seen exactly... none in 8,000 miles of driving. Chademo chargers are scattered about because there are Japanese EVs sold here, but I think CCS is a European thing. Who's selling European EVs in the US? I guess they just introduced the iPace in the last month or so. Anything else?

 

[gnuarm]

That's exactly what the "shorts" said about the Model S in 2012 and yet demand has remained strong throughout it's 6 year life. I think Tesla will have no problem whatsoever selling all the M3s it can churn out for at least the next 2-3 years. Remember they haven't even supplied a single car to Europe or the Far East at this point. Even if they didn't sell a single car in the US for the next 12 months, I'm sure they could still sell all their production capacity to the ROW. For all those people who put down a deposit on the M3 in the last few years, there will be many more who will be willing to order when they can get a car delivered within a couple of months or off inventory. In reality, new model reservations are just the tip of the demand iceberg. It's not even like there's any direct like-for-like competition in sight over the next year.

You seem to be saying more than one thing. First let me disconnect the sales of the models S and 3. The model S was the first production EV from Tesla. The first car you could buy and drive and not treat like a lab queen. But it was very expensive, a true luxury car and there were virtually no chargers. So sure sales would remain relatively consistent because they never really caught up with demand. As more chargers appeared and trips became practical that continued to increase demand for EVs in general so when the model X appeared demand for the S didn't drop off.

But to say demand for the S has remained strong for all 6 years, what you really mean is demand has stayed ahead of supply so there is a waiting period to buy. But that wait is about the same as the production time which is mandatory since they don't want to do what Detroit does, filling lots with tons of cars which then have to be sold. The quantity of model S sales has remained about the same number for years. A number that no one in the auto industry would say is "strong". If GM made the model S or X they would have discontinued it after a few years just as they are dropping the Volt.

The last part of your post reads just like the post you replied to, except you are only looking a very few years out where I agree Tesla can do well. They have the charging advantage and right now the only real competition to the 3 is the Bolt. You then stop looking ahead. It is 2 to 4 years out when many of the major auto companies will have competing models out. The Leaf is supposed to start shipping with a 150 mile battery very soon. I don't know all the dates of all the cars, but they are coming and sooner than you seem to realize.

Nearly every other BEV that comes out will be good competition to the model 3, especially the 200 mile, $35,000 version they are months from selling yet. What exactly was the competition to the model S? If you think sales of the model 3 will remain strong for the same reasons the model S sales didn't diminish, you aren't thinking logically, but rather emotionally. "Things have always been good, so they will always be good."

In 4 more years Tesla will have lost an absolute charging advantage making the competing brands practical for trips which means a *lot* more people can replace their ICE with a BEV that isn't a Tesla. With the huge clout and manufacturing expertise big iron has they can and will dominate the market unless... Tesla prepares for this. Musk is a great entrepreneur, but can he run a company that has to compete with big iron and compete for the true mainstream high volume production auto world we live in. Only time will tell. But they won't get there by staying on the same course that got them here.