-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Or they could update the code in the car to turn its own authentication on or off. Supercharger still sees "yes" or "no", but car keeps track of authorization.
That is likely to bring up legal issues best avoided. What *exactly* did Tesla say you were buying? What *exactly* did their advertising say? Litigating is probably more expensive than just taking the loss.
Thank you kindly.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Ahh, but no one has any supercharging terms language in any of their purchase contracts. It's only listed as an option on the car. All we know is the advertising that says long distance travel for life. That does not specify how that is to be implemented.
I am going to go to my favorite example of Tesla changing the rules mid-stream: Ranger service being $100 flat rate, unlimited miles. The only folks who got to keep that policy were the ones who had it in writing in the service plan contract. Everyone else was forced to the new per mileage charge despite what had been advertised when they bought the car.
RogerHScott
Active Member
The former in no way implies the latter. They aren't Tesla's huge parking lots -- they're someone else's huge parking lots.
I wish I could have the $2000 back...I don't see us using the SC much except for trips. Lower priced model S's mean more sales.
RogerHScott
Active Member
I keep seeing this claim made, but given how many MS owners hardly blinked to add $15k or more worth of options onto
their orders it is hard to imagine that $2k is really going to be the deciding factor for many people. For a $30k car, sure.
But for a $75-100k car?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
"Except for trips" ? That's not an exception, that's the purpose.
Pretty much this. It's actually pretty surprising to see the number of people who come up with solutions that assume Tesla has the right to do whatever they want for the super chargers. Tesla has to negotiate with the actual property owners at most of these locations, and not all of them will be amenable to Tesla taking up more room.
Plus, solar panels (and batteries to store power to offset demand) is an IMMENSE expense to cover for super chargers. As others have pointed out, super charging just one Tesla from zero to full would be several times what the average single family home uses in electricity in one day, and that's over the course of, ideally, less than one hour. The average single family home uses 911 kwh per month, which is a little over than 30 per day. That's only a little over half of the battery capacity of even the smallest Tesla battery (since the 60 has capacity reserved to keep it from bricking).
It might be doable at less popular SC locations, but then it would still be an expensive up front cost and wouldn't be defraying much expense. If Tesla tries to do it at the more popular SC locations in CA, the space requirements would be insane, not to mention the expense, and, perhaps most importantly, the time and resources and labor that would have to be redirected, all for a goal that would take years to pay off.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Net metering could be one solution, but I tend to think that Tesla will choose it's own batteries anyway to mitigate demand charges and to bump up charging rates to the next level for ~ 15 minutes per charge.
I see a lot of people using it in Socal while they shop since they "prepaid" for the service (Fountain Valley, CA). I think have the option to pay per use or in bulk on initial purchase works for everyone.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I was just mulling over the possibility of Tesla offering build-out of PV around superchargers as a community solar option, excised through use of chargers or some other compensation
I wouldn't assume they were moochers though. They might have planned their charging stop around the shopping trip - or they might have stopped to charge and then decided to shop while they were waiting. We are not required to stay in the car - but we are expected to move when we have enough to continue.
I drive 185 miles home for my commute and have a SC 20 miles from my house. The navigation sometimes routes me home via that supercharger, but since I prefer to take back roads home, I ignore that stop and just get more of a charge the supercharger before that one. However, sometimes I want to stop at my "local" supercharger on my way home because there is a nice grocery store there and maybe I need food for dinner. So I charge less at the charger before.
I am local, but I am not abusing it. I am following the navigation and the superchargers plotted on my route. I only need about 10 minutes there to get home and that's all I charge. However, someone could pull in and see my "local" tag and assume I am an abuser. And since they don't know where I'm going or where I've been, that would be an unfair assumption.
Chopr147
Active Member
I disagree. Look how many model 3 reservers decided to purchase an S once the 60kwh came out. I am one of those. $58,500 after tax credit "advertising" sounds pretty good. Of course I then started adding options
but lower cost means more sales even if it is "only" $2000. That $2000 may make AP more affordable for some people who squeeze it.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
People change behavior, and even act irrationally, for a lot less than $2000. SC abuse is a pretty good example.I disagree. Look how many model 3 reservers decided to purchase an S once the 60kwh came out. I am one of those. $58,500 after tax credit "advertising" sounds pretty good. Of course I then started adding options
No matter what Tesla does about the SC policy, there will be some who will not be satisfied with the changes. But if they are going to make changes, they should do it before the Model 3 is produced - and they ramp up to selling 500,000 cars per year...
We plan to buy another Model S if/when a 100D with AP 2.0 comes out - and we'll want "free long distance" SC for that car - it will be our road trip car.
We also have a Model 3 reserved, which will be the replacement for our classic 75K mile P85, and because we'll likely use that as my wife's commuter, we would probably save $$ and not order the SC support. Though we would want the SC hardware onboard, with the option of using the SC network, if our plans changed after we get the car.
We plan to buy another Model S if/when a 100D with AP 2.0 comes out - and we'll want "free long distance" SC for that car - it will be our road trip car.
We also have a Model 3 reserved, which will be the replacement for our classic 75K mile P85, and because we'll likely use that as my wife's commuter, we would probably save $$ and not order the SC support. Though we would want the SC hardware onboard, with the option of using the SC network, if our plans changed after we get the car.
Who cares? I suspect that Tesla didn't buy the land for most of the Superchargers, just leases it. Why invent silly objections? Businesses exchange goods and services all the time, it isn't tricky. Tesla leases the air space over those huge parking lots, at a low price since there isn't any other way for the owner to monetize that space, plus the cars parking in the lot get shade, making that lot more desirable.
***
There is an amazing amount of goalpost shifting going on here. It starts (for me) with an objection concerning the possibility of electricity rates going up. I respond with the obvious (I thought) idea that in that case, Tesla makes good on their plan of solarizing the Superchargers (since solar PV is dropping in price at an amazing rate). Then the objection becomes there isn't enough space to put PV near the superchargers (not that you would have to do that). When I respond that most Supercharger are surrounded by vast parking lots, it is no longer a space issue, but rather that Tesla doesn't *own* the space. I am sure some other objection will be made to the idea that they could lease the space. Apparently some people like problems more than they like solutions.
Thank you kindly.
Last edited:
RogerHScott
Active Member
You've got to be kidding. Think of the practical issues with constructing a solar canopy over a parking lot. That canopy has to be held up by something and those supports would need to withstand being run into be careless drivers (who don't expect to encounter solar
canopy supports in their grocery store parking lot), which makes them expensive. Sure, what you suggest is physically possible but
it also sounds grossly impractical. Just because you didn't anticipate a problem doesn't make the problem silly.
Similar threads
