If Tesla's rate is close to what I pay for a three phase 800 amp connection, my average rate (usage averaged over average rate) with PG&E is .24 per Kwh. They should charge more than what they are paying for the electricity alone.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Well, no, not the "same" thing. They have to buy your unused capacity just like any other buyer would. Then they own it. They can
then sell it, but the "it" is the capacity they bought from the previous owner, not the original (which they haven't owned since they
originally sold the car to that owner).
Canuck
Well-Known Member
My guess as well, but I see it more being in line with a new "lifetime per owner" policy. The one that I'm probably wrong about.
Wait, you convinced me on the lifetime per owner thing. You can't hedge your bets or back out of it now.
So Tesla gets a CPO car and removes supercharging for life and I'm suppose to dislike Tesla? That makes me like them more since that car won't be locally supercharging as I come by on my travels looking for a charge and it adversely affects no one -- the owner traded it in and the new buyer doesn't pay for lifetime free.
And do we like Tesla more when they change a 60 to a 75, or add 4 more years warranty? It has no effect on me but good for the new CPO purchaser (although they do pay for these things -- it's just a way for Tesla to better compete with trade-in values and still make a profit).
Last edited:
The way it sits today, for those with Teslas that have SC for life, your initial SC fee (outright or hidden) becomes worth more and more each year as the grid expands, not less and less. You will be able to go more places, faster, and that has value.
So the rapid expansion of SC network should be encouraged by the existing owners as it increases the value of their car. The more money pumped into the SC network, the faster it grows.
So the rapid expansion of SC network should be encouraged by the existing owners as it increases the value of their car. The more money pumped into the SC network, the faster it grows.
For CPO this model works because they get less money for the car when they sell it without supercharging. But when you sell it it's you who gets less money. Basicly $3000 or whatever the lifetime fee is disappears immediately from car value when you buy it.
My intent was to convince you that it was possible and not terribly onerous. And yes, I'm being weaselly about it. How about this - I'm absolutely confident that it's a possibility.Wait, you convinced me on the lifetime per owner thing. You can't hedge your bets or back out of it now.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Adding friction to a frictionless system is counterproductive. Especially when that system is 97% underutilized and less than 50% complete.
That won't stop the fearmongering, clearly.
Decoupling is one thing. Taking away one-time payment for charging (poorly phrased as lifetime charging) is unnecessary for the S and X. It's arguably not even necessary for the Model 3 except as a giveback for the majority of owners who rarely use SCs in the first place.
The benefit of then adding prepaid is for those owners who change their minds and who don't want to get stuck for $3,000 for an after-build activation.
Still fine - but taking away one-time is just a bad idea. Although it'll certainly help values for existing used cars.
That won't stop the fearmongering, clearly.
Decoupling is one thing. Taking away one-time payment for charging (poorly phrased as lifetime charging) is unnecessary for the S and X. It's arguably not even necessary for the Model 3 except as a giveback for the majority of owners who rarely use SCs in the first place.
The benefit of then adding prepaid is for those owners who change their minds and who don't want to get stuck for $3,000 for an after-build activation.
Still fine - but taking away one-time is just a bad idea. Although it'll certainly help values for existing used cars.
cpa
Active Member
Ok here is my two cents after following this dialogue for the past several days:
We really do not know the motivation behind this change, so I will toss my line into the water to see if I get any nibbles.
Since we ordered our S85 in April 2014, I have noticed that Tesla continually tweaks options and bundling. We paid $250 for the parcel shelf, and a few weeks later it was standard. They bundle A with B and C today and then tomorrow bundle A with D and B and C alone. Sales reps are unable to add options a la carte or delete an unwanted option that is bundled with one the customer wants and reduce the purchase price.
I think that it is certainly plausible that Tesla has lost a number of sales of the S/X because the prospective customer did not want Supercharging, or wanted pay-per-use in exchange for a couple of thousand dollars off the purchase price. (Why pay an extra $2,000 -- or whatever-- for something I will use only 6 times per year?) Perhaps there has been feedback from sales representatives and maybe even service centers relating this fact.
So, maybe Tesla is doing some data gathering now with the S/X buyers to see how much demand there is for Supercharging for those vehicles. We are probably about 9-12 months away before Tesla releases its configurations and pricing. That should be enough time to glean an understanding of the popularity of purchasing "unlimited Supercharging" or PPU or whatever.
I concede that the customer base for the S/X is different from the Model 3. However, I think that there will be some valuable information collected which will allow Tesla to try to price and configure the Model 3 to maximize orders and minimize cancellations, while balancing out the completion of the Supercharger network.
We really do not know the motivation behind this change, so I will toss my line into the water to see if I get any nibbles.
Since we ordered our S85 in April 2014, I have noticed that Tesla continually tweaks options and bundling. We paid $250 for the parcel shelf, and a few weeks later it was standard. They bundle A with B and C today and then tomorrow bundle A with D and B and C alone. Sales reps are unable to add options a la carte or delete an unwanted option that is bundled with one the customer wants and reduce the purchase price.
I think that it is certainly plausible that Tesla has lost a number of sales of the S/X because the prospective customer did not want Supercharging, or wanted pay-per-use in exchange for a couple of thousand dollars off the purchase price. (Why pay an extra $2,000 -- or whatever-- for something I will use only 6 times per year?) Perhaps there has been feedback from sales representatives and maybe even service centers relating this fact.
So, maybe Tesla is doing some data gathering now with the S/X buyers to see how much demand there is for Supercharging for those vehicles. We are probably about 9-12 months away before Tesla releases its configurations and pricing. That should be enough time to glean an understanding of the popularity of purchasing "unlimited Supercharging" or PPU or whatever.
I concede that the customer base for the S/X is different from the Model 3. However, I think that there will be some valuable information collected which will allow Tesla to try to price and configure the Model 3 to maximize orders and minimize cancellations, while balancing out the completion of the Supercharger network.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You keep repeating this. Remember when you said this:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1352826/
Do you still think it: "is a ludicrous non-starter of an idea and simply will never happen"?
Ohmman said:
Last edited:
Expanding the SpC network also increases the usefulness of the M3 I reserved.
Therefore if given the option, I will definitely choose to contribute 2K for SpC network expansion to pay it forward as an 'investment' in a bit of self motivation to take a few epic road trips while I still can. And maybe with AP, even after I can't ;-)
Yes, I know this doesn't make any sense from a selfish cost of my capital.
It is a little bit I can do to accelerate the future, just like I've been opting to pay a little more for 100% renewable electricity in PA.
This is the car I expect to be driving when I retire in 6 years or so after about 120k miles just commuting (while charging at home of course.)
I don't (yet) plan on ever buying another car, though I suspect I may be in the market for a 'Y' once my spouse learns firsthand why I have been obsessed with a M3.
Even though I could theoretically afford a MS, other 'priorities' prevent that. A base M3 would be significantly more than I have spent on any car in 40 years. I've never before purchased a car before running the previous one into the ground. I've never once worried about trade in values.
As an S owner, I'm perfectly happy sort of subsidizing the build-out of the supercharger network with the $2,500 payment up front, even though I know I'll never get anywhere near that much use out of the network during the three-year lease. That said, that's just looking at it from a price/kwh perspective and doesn't take into account the convenience or necessity of superchargers, which is critical for relatively hassle-free and optimized (to some extent) long-distance travel.
For our Model 3, we'll very likely take the pay-as-you-go option rather than the upfront charge, simply because we don't use superchargers a ton. It's a smart move, as others have noted, 1) because it opens the network up to other brands and improves the chances of it becoming some sort of standard and 2) because it further lowers the cost of entry for both the S/X and more importantly, the Model 3.
For our Model 3, we'll very likely take the pay-as-you-go option rather than the upfront charge, simply because we don't use superchargers a ton. It's a smart move, as others have noted, 1) because it opens the network up to other brands and improves the chances of it becoming some sort of standard and 2) because it further lowers the cost of entry for both the S/X and more importantly, the Model 3.
One thing a PPU may end up doing is making peak use of SpC worse. Currently the book value of the supercharger network is about $180M for 136k cars (that's in their quarterly filings). That's $1300/car just for the infrastructure. A good industry wide guideline for yearly maintenance is 10% of book value. That's another $130/car/year. Those that will buy credits to use the supercharger will only pay a very tiny fraction of that amount (unless prices are $1/kWh or something outrageous like that). Yet they will likely exactly want to use the network on peak days (holiday weekends, etc). It's a tricky balance to get right for sure.
The credit system is genius, and not a complete surprise if you've heard Elon explain the essence of his intended PayPal business model.
It seems to me this is one aspect for the no brainer of Tesla as a next generation energy company.
For example, my future PV credits are most likely in the same account obviating the need for overhead of conventional financial transactions, while putting scraps of capital to work advancing the future of sustainable energy.
This is another reason this isn't a 'pay per use' model though it does enable 'pay proportional to use'.
It seems to me this is one aspect for the no brainer of Tesla as a next generation energy company.
For example, my future PV credits are most likely in the same account obviating the need for overhead of conventional financial transactions, while putting scraps of capital to work advancing the future of sustainable energy.
This is another reason this isn't a 'pay per use' model though it does enable 'pay proportional to use'.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Looks like Tao will be having some humble pie ...
I hear they're hiring for spinmeisters lately - don't miss out.
That said... Hardly. Enabling simple prepayment keeps the payment process (far) away from the pedestal which is almost the entire point.
Further, despite the populist insistence upon "either or", and despite the baseless speculation, I see this as an "and".
Specifically, in deference to those complaining about being charged for SCing even though they claim that they won't use it, Tesla has deployed an Iacocca (reference to base model Mustang debuting without a radio so as to be most accessible to families as an affordable car - this being back in 1964).
What's completely jumped the shark, however, is the notion that all of a sudden there will be no one-time option - either for the S/X or 3, and that makes less than no sense.
What does make sense is giving entry-level buyers a lower price point *and* the option of either upgrading later (one-time fee plus a post-build premium - see AP or the high-amperage charger as examples) *or* continuing with their prepaid balance. Either way there's no slowdown at the pedestal.
From a practical standpoint, let's say it's 2 years from now, at one of the few SCs considered "busy". Since this example wouldn't work at the 97% of the network that's underutilized which is to say empty much of the time. So at, say, a Los Angeles SC in the Fall of 2018, there are 4 Model S and 4 Model 3. By *not* using poo-poo (pay per use at the charger), you wouldn't be able to tell who was one-time (lifetime) and who wasn't. In, out, and on their way much like today *except* with the added benefit of extra incentivation to not idle - at least for the Model 3s that chose the prepaid option, that is. It's a start.
So none of that is a bad thing *as long as poo-poo is replaced by pre-paid*, which is what appears to be happening. Yes, there may be a few clueless first-timers who try to pre-pay at the pedestal, but that's not much different from today - not a month goes by that a new Leaf owner doesn't try to use an SC (Nissan has a new 2-year Charge Anywhere program that isn't quite accurate).
You may keep yer pie
.I don't believe there can be a one time option for the model 3 unless "supercharger for travel only" can be enforced. SInce "for travel only" probably can't be enforced, IMO the model 3 will not have a one time fee option.
Tesla can't enforce complicated policies. If an owner is doing 90% of their charging 20 miles from home is that use considered "travel"? How about 30 miles, or 50?
A geofencing solution will simply be gamed. e.g. Registering the car at moms and but charging near home.
Tesla is going to need to build a lot of city superchargers for apartment dwellers. Revenue neutral city chargers are easiest with per kwh pricing.
Tesla can't enforce complicated policies. If an owner is doing 90% of their charging 20 miles from home is that use considered "travel"? How about 30 miles, or 50?
A geofencing solution will simply be gamed. e.g. Registering the car at moms and but charging near home.
Tesla is going to need to build a lot of city superchargers for apartment dwellers. Revenue neutral city chargers are easiest with per kwh pricing.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Chuq
Active Member
That's been my argument as well.
Personally, I live 300 km drive plus a 9 hour ferry trip away from my nearly supercharger. I live on an island of 500,000 people, chances are there won't be a SC here for a while. So the logical thing for me to do is to not buy SC access. On the chance that I take the car on that ferry/road trip, it would be logical for me to pay per use for the SCs. However for the sake of the growth of the *network* as a while, I'd rather pay a fixed amount up front. This also sends Tesla the message "Hey, there are people in Tasmania paying for SC access... maybe build one or two there?"
It will be interesting to see how the pricing is implemented in Europe where industrial rates for electricity range from 4 cents to 20 cents in different countries.
I am guessing that the charge will either be cost neutral or potentially a profit centre for Tesla and may even be spun off as a separate company in the future which could help Tesla raise cash for future expansion plans.
I am guessing that the charge will either be cost neutral or potentially a profit centre for Tesla and may even be spun off as a separate company in the future which could help Tesla raise cash for future expansion plans.
So one mechanism, which is viewed as evil but is proven effective, is congestion pricing. Not sure how that would be done if Tesla has a preset kWh credit model. But having some sort of accounting would make it possible if that's a direction Tesla wanted to go. And yes, I realize everyone here probably hates the idea.
Similar threads
