Help me out here. I am naive on the CHAdeMO. I think for this to work for me I would need to understand how long it would take to charge at CHAdeMO and I would need to be comfortable that there are reliable chargers on routes that I would need to take like Austin->Dallas, Austin->Houston/Gulf Coast, Austin->New Orleans. What are the differences between supercharger and CHAdeMO charging besides cost? This probably won't be an issue I am guessing because I plan on buying the bigger battery.
CHAdeMO is a DC Fast Charging standard that has the potential to be very good. Unfortunately, that potential is largely locked away, because traditional automobile manufacturers don't actually want electric cars to be successful at all. So, while CHAdeMO is certainly faster at charging than just about any widely distributed charging method other than Tesla Superchargers, the installations are typically only the bare minimum to be
'faster' than Level 2 charging, and not set to deliver its maximum capability, which is about half as fast as Tesla offers. Thus, the amount of miles you would add through CHAdeMO in one hour might be roughly equivalent to what a Supercharger would do in only 20-to-30 minutes, at best. And most CHAdeMO chargers are not set up to deliver their best experience.
Another fast charging system is called CCS, affectionately referred to as the FRANKENPLUG. It's maximum DC Fast Charging capability is higher than CHAdeMO, but still slower than a Tesla Supercharger. It's distribution is next to nil to begin with, and even those are mostly GIMPED to speeds that barely match the slower CHAdeMO chargers. Again, for the reason noted above, traditional automobile manufacturers do NO actually want electric cars to be successful. They would rather convince the buying public that even the best available solution for refueling an electric car is inconvenient and unworthy of consideration. You may expect distribution of FRANKENPLUG to pick up over the course of the next five years, as State and Federal programs begin to distribute them along designated
'Green Highways' or whatever.
I think you have a little bit of a utopia outlook on car purchasing. Initially Tesla can get away for charging everyone thousands for this charging network because there are a lot of early adopters.
Please understand, the initial premise of the original post and title of this thread is completely wrong. There is no way in [HECK] that Tesla Motors is going to assess a $2,500 fee to use Superchargers. Many of us believe the base version of the car will use a software limited battery pack. So, anyone who chooses to unlock the full capacity of that battery pack will probably get Supercharger access
"FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!" as part of the deal.
I would be very surprised if people chose to keep the minimum capacity, but asked for Supercharging to be added alone. In that case, it still wouldn't cost very much, perhaps $500 or so to activate. Not thousands, and not for
'everyone', only those who make the choice. There is the possibility that without the battery pack upgrade, the Supercharger access would only be available
"...for a Limited Time!" instead of
"...for LIFE!" I figure three, four, or five years.
Frankly I'll be tempted even if I won't use it much. That isn't to say though that they can't come up with some ingenious way to do "poo-poo" without causing a bunch of issues. I think it is far fetched to say that the average car buyer would be ok with paying the money upfront knowing they won't drive it much outside of the city. Eventually Tesla is going to have to win over more than just the enthusiasts. That might not be the first 2 or 3 years of Model 3 production but if they want to keep up mass production of a car of this cost they are going to have to come up with options for these types of things.
The
'average car buyer' will be getting an Accord, Camry, Malibu, Fusion, Altima, Sonata, Corolla, Civic, Focus, Elantra, Sentra, Cruze, or whatever. I have long protested the notion of the
'commuter car' or
'city car'. I cannot think of a single example of such that is truly successful or desirable to the US public. People may well buy cars as a convenient means of transportation between a given Point
'A' and Point
'B' and nothing else. There are certainly people who drive in a tiny, predictable loop of 1,200 miles or less per month. But there is no way that those are the majority of NEW car buyers year in and year out. Someone that thinks of cars as a mere appliance are going to buy used instead. They are of no concern to Tesla Motors at all. The vast majority of those who purchase a new car will want the freedom to go anywhere with it, as a baseline minimum expectation, even if they won't actually go on long road trips with any frequency. There is a reason why traditional automobile manufacturers don't choose to sell
'cheap' cars with only a five gallon fuel capacity. Even a so-called fuel efficient
'commuter' or
'city' or
'economy' car should carry more than a day or two worth of fuel. Someone in Los Angeles CA may not intend to drive a Yaris to Bozeman MT, but if the need arises, they certainly expect the car to be able to make the trip.
Here is an example... Say I put $200 credit on my account. Think iTunes. Then whenever I go charge they charge me per minute (I know there are arguments against this). Let's say it is $0.50/minute. I plug in for 30 to 40 minutes and I pay $15. They just automatically deduct it from my account. If I have a credit card on file and don't have a credit they charge my account directly. There is no additional time requirement at the supercharger. You just plug in and go. Let's say I only use the superchargers in this way every other year or so because of my use of this particular car. Then I have spent $1k over the lifetime of my 10 year old car but at the same time haven't
I assume that sentence wold have ended with something like,
"...spent anywhere near what the up-front cost would have been." That's an interesting theory. I expect it is incorrect though.
Ultimately, in order to
'sell' an upgrade to
"FREE (of additional fees) for LIFE (the life of the car)!" it would be necessary for it to be readily obvious that using any type of subscription or pay-per-minute or pay-per-use type plan would have some type of disadvantage that revealed itself well before ten years passed. Probably less than five years, and hopefully less than three.
Regardless of the end cost I am going to analyze each option to see if it is "worth it" to me. Yes I might not see the paint from the outside while I am driving but I will see it as I walk up to the car or when it is sitting in my driveway. I love to admire my clean car quite a bit actually. Black and White aren't options for me and I would be willing to pay a bit more for another color since I do have to look at it every day. The other thing is bigger battery, leather seats, performance package, are all things that I can appreciate on a regular basis when I am commuting on my car every day. I do have to live with the car every day and I plan on keeping it for 10 years so I am willing to spend more up front.
I have no argument against any of this. This seems to be a prudent and frugal means of determining what is best for you. That is what is important. Buy the car that you want, instead of getting something for the next owner.
Now with that said it is hard to spend $2500 on something (I know it is speculation) that is costing me way more than the value I'll get out of it. But at the same time if I don't pay for it I feel like I am 'crippling' my car. Yeah I try to future proof and I don't know what life will have for me in 5 years so if I buy this car now and pay it off then I have a sudden life change and I have to be in the car more then the car becomes an issue. That is what I am having trouble swallowing. Any other ICE car and this isn't a concern and I don't have to pay $2500 extra just in case I need to make a long distance trip. If they provided a way where I know I could pay "poo-poo" if I need it then that would solve the concern.
I look at it another way. I wish someone had pointed out to me ahead of time the additional expenses related to buying my first car. No one ever did. Because everyone assumed I already knew. I probably would have put off the purchase at least another six months, while I saved more money up front, had I known. Car payment and insurance is pretty straightforward, sure... But until you actually look at it, paying for gasoline, oil changes, smog inspection, registration, car washes, brakes, tires, windshield wipers, bulbs for headlights and tail lights... All of those recurring fees add up to quite a bit more than one expects ahead of time. Each one contributes to the actual cost of ownership.
Many of those are eliminated by purchasing an electric car. Others are continuing expenses of similar cost. To me, knowing ahead of time that certain monies would have been spent anyway contributes to my being OK with paying the costs up front instead of
'over time'. Especially when the up front amount is in total less than the amount
'over time'. I would have to be absolutely certain that I would NEVER need to drive long distance AT ALL to consider NOT purchasing the Supercharger option up front, either as a separate line item, or included with an upgrade to a higher capacity battery pack.
The fact of the matter is that I already KNOW full well that I enjoy driving. And that I would drive at least 45% of my miles on the open highway each year. And that the Supercharger network would be pivotal to achieve that goal. And that if I wanted to, I could pick a direction and GO, then find myself in Bozeman MT some day, on a whim.
That is what I am hoping for. I am pretty sure I'm getting the bigger battery just because I live in Texas and everything is so spread out. Plus I want the performance package so if it is like the Model S it will be a requirement for that. I probably don't have to worry about cancelling but at some point I have to be realistic if this is really worth having those large payments for. This will be the most expensive car I have ever purchased. I am usually buying loaded Accords etc...
The most expensive Honda Accord of recent memory cost more than $5,000 over the entry level price point for Tesla Model ☰.
At $40,570 the 2014 Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid offered a big huge honking
13 miles of fully electric range, and a total range of 570 miles. That was only about 173 miles less than the
'ordinary' hybrid version of the Accord, which cost over $5,000 less. This is yet another example of how traditional automobile manufacturers, even Honda, continue to impress upon the public at large that simply adding a plug to a car means you have to automatically give up both a big wad of cash, and useful driving range. Whatever you end up spending for a Tesla Model ☰, you will get a lot more car than Honda ever would have delivered to you.
