-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharging to reduce ownership cost of a Model S.
- Thread starter No2DinosaurFuel
- Start date
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Admittedly I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments in superchargers (the locations you mentioned don't show up in the supercharger maps).
I think the Culver City one would qualify given the close proximity to the Hawthorne station (it's why I deleted that line about city superchargers with multiple inner-city stations not coming to US yet), but San Mateo and Mountain View stations I would think is just coverage for HWY 101. There's not many non-city places in the Bay Area section of HWY 101 to install a supercharger and still be inside or within walking distance to places you want to spend 30 minutes.
And it's just one in that city. The examples I am talking about have multiple stations per city (ones in China like in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and in London).
And the Fremont station you are talking about the Tesla factory station right? I think that hardly qualifies given it was there as one of the first demo stations and critical for those taking a long trip for the factory delivery (unless there's another one in Fremont being installed).
I think SF would be the prime place to install multiple city superchargers.
- - - Updated - - -
You suggested that a quote that shows Tesla "this use case proper; that use case discouraged" as Danal put it, doesn't exist. So I went to great length to find quotes that suggest Tesla is pushing road trips as a primary use case and even a quote that shows they suggest home/office charging should be used for daily travel and superchargers for roadtrips. If that is not evidence, I don't know what is? I also addressed the point about city superchargers (intended for those without home charging).
Last edited:
The Supercharger locations I posted are all in "cities". The LA metropolitan area is one big continuous sprawl of cities. The SF peninsula and the Easy Bay are one continuous sprawl of cities. No gaps between them. And there are more Superchargers coming soon to those two urban areas.
You seem to think that San Francisco proper is the only "city" in the Bay Area. That is simply not true. And Los Angeles proper is not the only "city" in the LA/Orange County area.
You seem to think that San Francisco proper is the only "city" in the Bay Area. That is simply not true. And Los Angeles proper is not the only "city" in the LA/Orange County area.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
A city is a city, area is an area. And I'm referring to the "congested city centers" part. Even if you consider the whole Bay Area as a "city", the "city center" would be in SF proper. And for daily travel within the city, I don't consider having to drive 20 miles down to San Mateo as a viable option. I would go as far as 10 miles down to Daly City and South San Francisco in stretching the definition of "city", but that's already not in city limits, which is more like a 5 mile radius.
There's a 20 mile gap between San Mateo to Mountain View, Mountain View to Fremont.
Contrast this with actual "city supercharger" stations in my examples (numbers below are stations, not stalls):
Beijing - 2 within 5 mile radius of center, all 7 within 10 mile radius
Shanghai - 3 within 5 mi, 5 within 10 mi, all 7 within 15 mi
Hong Kong - 4 within 5 mi, all 6 within 10 mi
London - 5 within 5 mi, 6 within 10 mi, all 8 within 15 mi
There are a couple more cities in China that match this, but I think the above is enough to illustrate the point.
I do realize LA has a wider sprawl, but I already said I consider the Culver City / Hawthorne pair (I actually missed Redondo Beach too) to match the criteria for a "city supercharger", so there is no disagreement there. They are only within a 5-10 mile radius to each other.
Last edited:
Including, but not limited to:
--The already cited Tesla verbiage that contradict the quotes you've pulled.
--The continued existence of local supercharging and lack of any discouragement from Tesla.
--The reality of supercharger placements (including the number of stalls) in highly populated areas.
Look, this thread really boils down to two related but very separate aspects: 1) The ethics of supercharging, and 2) the intent of superchargers. What's happened is that some people are trying desperately to use the second one as proof that their opinion on the first one is right, and so its getting all mixed up and emotional (and unfortunately, sometimes rude...). Setting aside the fool's errand aspect of the ethical debate, the problem is that there's no way to unequivocally prove superchargers are not for locals, which is ultimately what those opposed to the concept are trying to do.
To wit, if you were right, this thread would be over already. Hence my "No, it isn't"...
JimmyAZ
Member
Wow. Talk about making this personal. Enough with the wordplay. 'Desparate' 'fool's errand' - whatever. Do what you want to do. Just know that there are people on here concerned about the ethics of what you're doing. If it boils down to right and wrong, Tesla will decide. Outside of that we just have to agree to disagree. These talking points are getting boring, especially when some people resort to the types of things quoted here.
Enough is enough.
hans
P631
How about we agree that Superchargers are meant for people who really need them. Doesn't matter if they live in the same city or not. The ethics part only applies when people who don't really need to supercharge are hogging the spots at the exclusion of those who do.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I see you missed my point about ethics being an entirely different issue from an explicit policy (my restaurant napkin analogy). Tesla has no policy baring anyone from using superchargers for any purpose (including hogging a station or using it for a taxi service). There is no dispute over this. Thus I have said very early on, the OP can go ahead and do whatever he wants. Tesla is not stopping him.
However, my point was that people feel it is unethical to use superchargers to save money on daily charging because Tesla markets the superchargers:
1) primarily to be used for roadtrips (I hope we at least have agreement on this point)
2) secondarily to be used by people in congested city centers without home charging
3) without a tertiary suggestion that it be used by people to save money on daily charging (as OP is doing)
If Tesla never suggested superchargers be used in certain use cases (only say it is a free quick charger without promoting any specific use case) or if they explicitly said superchargers are great way to save on daily charging costs, there would not be an ethics discussion. In the absence of such explicit approval given by Tesla, people default to analogies similar to the napkin analogy I used (taking a "free" resource for use at home).
If I were wrong about such usage being even a little bit unethical, this thread would not even exist in the first place.
In fact, the OP himself said he was there was ethics issues with this usage in the start, although as the thread evolved and people took him to task for it, his argument evolved to that there is no ethical concern about this (although I will give him credit for promising to minimize any impact to other drivers).
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
It's kind of like the issue with not getting your children vaccinated for disease. If just a few do it, no big deal. If lots of people do it, the disease will come back.
If just a few use the Superchargers to avoid paying to plug into their own sockets, no problem. If lots of people do it the system will collapse.
If just a few use the Superchargers to avoid paying to plug into their own sockets, no problem. If lots of people do it the system will collapse.
William13
Active Member
In California there may be concerns with using the Superchargers in cities, but in the great unpopulated Midwest I occasionally Supercharge as a form of advertising for Tesla. Otherwise people don't understand what the lonely stands are doing in the mall parking lot.
Tesla uses the Superchargers as advertising currently. Thus I try to help them when no one else is charging and it is still daylight.
Outside of city centers it is too inconvenient to use Superchargers on a routine... My supercharger is 1500 feet away from my office. I only use it occasionally as it represents a 5-10 minute walk, versus 5-10 seconds to plug in at home. Yes, I am lazy. Most of humanity is lazy. I am not worried about a few percent of owners plugging in for routine charging with the Model S price point. These owners can afford to install a plug and pay for the electricity.
When the Model 3 is released, we may see people for whom the cost of an installation and electricity is a bigger portion income. Also Tesla may not automatically include lifetime free Supercharger access in the Model 3. However I predict that Tesla will continue "free forever" to differentiate from other manufacturers. Truly a small part of the cost of marketing. They may need to stop this advertising campaign a few years after the Model 3 introduction if costs skyrocket. They would likely charge the later Model 3 owners a per kWh fee. I however believe that the best and wisest course is to continue the buffet style as most Model 3 owners will use the Superchargers for trips only.
Tesla uses the Superchargers as advertising currently. Thus I try to help them when no one else is charging and it is still daylight.
Outside of city centers it is too inconvenient to use Superchargers on a routine... My supercharger is 1500 feet away from my office. I only use it occasionally as it represents a 5-10 minute walk, versus 5-10 seconds to plug in at home. Yes, I am lazy. Most of humanity is lazy. I am not worried about a few percent of owners plugging in for routine charging with the Model S price point. These owners can afford to install a plug and pay for the electricity.
When the Model 3 is released, we may see people for whom the cost of an installation and electricity is a bigger portion income. Also Tesla may not automatically include lifetime free Supercharger access in the Model 3. However I predict that Tesla will continue "free forever" to differentiate from other manufacturers. Truly a small part of the cost of marketing. They may need to stop this advertising campaign a few years after the Model 3 introduction if costs skyrocket. They would likely charge the later Model 3 owners a per kWh fee. I however believe that the best and wisest course is to continue the buffet style as most Model 3 owners will use the Superchargers for trips only.
gnxs
Member
Tesla's marketing (re: the Superchargers) is meant to address the concerns of potential buyers buying an EV. Tesla is the first pure EV that is capable, with the help of SCs, of practical long distance travel and that's the message they want to get out. They want that message heard because it's one of the most persistent criticisms thrown at EVs. All their marketing is produced to address concerns people have raised about why a Tesla might not work for them and that's why their message may tend to target specific situations. It's not because they are telling us how we MUST use them, but how we CAN use them.
I don't even agree with your first point, at least not the way you worded it. Replace the word "primarily" with "can" and I'd be on board. I tend to take Tesla's wording at face value when I see the Q&A on the Supercharging section of their website mention this:
"How often can I Supercharge? Is it bad for my battery?
Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like."
Every Tesla employee I dealt with when shopping for and purchasing my Tesla gave me this same message, use them as much as you like.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Tesla certainly does want to remove barriers & much of the message regarding Superchargers is about that.
But consider this: When the decision was made to offer Supercharging free, certain assumptions had to be made regarding how customers would use. Certainly there was no data available at that point in time. If the assumptions were that they were removing barriers to long distance travel, then the message would have been crafted to reflect that. "Superchargers will be placed along every major highway to enable long-distance travel." (And yep, that was the original message.)
The decision to make this free was based on a usage model that is rapidly evolving to something else. Now we have people charging on their way home to save a dollar or two. We see more Superchargers being placed to relieve congestion in city centers. That change in behavior WILL be considered going forward & could impact current owners today and future owners. Yes, it's been promised as free for life - but there has been no promise as to rate of charge, for instance. It's been theorized that locals were being dialed back at superchargers. If that were true, perhaps it would be an attempt to see if people were discouraged from using supercharging for local top offs. I dunno. But I do know that the current usage model being proposed here was NOT originally anticipated. So if people are going to throw around Tesla's language regarding usage model, please also cite the language when this was first rolled out.
One person doesn't matter. But let's have a reality check here. Tesla never meant for this to be a convenient way to save a few bucks. That was NOT reflected in their original messaging or placement of Superchargers. They may be okay with it for now. Maybe permanently. I don't have access to the costs. (And for those of you who want to point out that they didn't exclude it, well they didn't exclude Superchargers as a place to run a kitten adoption ring or set up a lemonade stand, either. Does't mean that's what they wanted.)
But consider this: When the decision was made to offer Supercharging free, certain assumptions had to be made regarding how customers would use. Certainly there was no data available at that point in time. If the assumptions were that they were removing barriers to long distance travel, then the message would have been crafted to reflect that. "Superchargers will be placed along every major highway to enable long-distance travel." (And yep, that was the original message.)
The decision to make this free was based on a usage model that is rapidly evolving to something else. Now we have people charging on their way home to save a dollar or two. We see more Superchargers being placed to relieve congestion in city centers. That change in behavior WILL be considered going forward & could impact current owners today and future owners. Yes, it's been promised as free for life - but there has been no promise as to rate of charge, for instance. It's been theorized that locals were being dialed back at superchargers. If that were true, perhaps it would be an attempt to see if people were discouraged from using supercharging for local top offs. I dunno. But I do know that the current usage model being proposed here was NOT originally anticipated. So if people are going to throw around Tesla's language regarding usage model, please also cite the language when this was first rolled out.
One person doesn't matter. But let's have a reality check here. Tesla never meant for this to be a convenient way to save a few bucks. That was NOT reflected in their original messaging or placement of Superchargers. They may be okay with it for now. Maybe permanently. I don't have access to the costs. (And for those of you who want to point out that they didn't exclude it, well they didn't exclude Superchargers as a place to run a kitten adoption ring or set up a lemonade stand, either. Does't mean that's what they wanted.)
I've not waded back in to this thread to discuss the "ethics" of this for a bit deliberately. Part of the reason is that much of this is a rehash of the SuperCharge every day? thread from a year-and-a-half ago, and I wanted to see how the dialog had changed. I'd encourage people here to go read that.
There are some things that have changed in the landscape since then, and a number of things the same. One thing that the previous thread useful for is that it provides a bit of sense of history surrounding the Supercharger rollout.
One statement the original poster said that I think bears response to:
This isn't the case for many responses here. If you read them, they are based on what they believe is "reasonable" for us as the EV community as a whole. My comments here fall in that category.
Folks here have made much of the ethics of the matter versus the practicality, the intent, the potential impact, etc... And while folks have taken absolute stances base on one or more of them, the reality is that it's likely a combination of all of them:
TESLA'S INTENT-
This is something that we can only go by based on what is stated to us. For many that's just whats printed on the website at any given moment. For others of us, we've seen/heard Elon and JB speak, have seen the Supercharger network layout evolve over time, have seen the revisions in printed statements, etc....
The theme from the inception was "Superchargers along travel corridors to enable long distance road trips, charging at origination/destination locations". Others have provided various quotes from he website (current and past) that speak to this. The supercharger sites were planned outside population centers along heavy travel routes.
Admittedly things have evolved: Supercharger spacing/density planning has changed to shorten distances in between, to accomodate the cars with less range. Tesla has also added some superchargers within city borders, ostensibly to support those in apartments, condos, etc... to have an option if they could not provide their own, or if the out-of-town traveler needed a quick turnaround.
Thus it appears that the intent in this all was: to provide charging options for those who could not reasonably provide their own, namely when on the road or when your residence did not allow for it.
I find it highly probable that Tesla may be forced to factor this behavior in at a future date, and the resulting policy change will be less favorable for us all.
PRACTICALITY
There are a couple of aspects to this. One is individual practicality. Some people feel the idea works for them (or are determined to make it work), for the amount of cost avoided. I don't see that a compelling reason, but each person has a different value scale. As has been mentioned, the convienance of starting off each morning with a full charge is a model that may need to be experienced to be appreciated... but it's one that Tesla has marketed as a benefit.
The other aspect of this is the (im)practicality of this being adopted by even a minority percentage of the user base. We will be in the neighborhood of 100K S's on the road. If just 1 out of 10 folks do this once r twice a week for a full charge, that's 10 thousand cars that will occupy a charging stall for for an hour or two. That's 10,000-20,000 charge-hours. There are something like 2500 charging stalls out there today. Given that many folks doing this would opt to do so coming to/from work, that's a couple hours every weekday morning and evening where every stall would be occupied by a person simply avoiding charging at home.
Even if my estimates are off by a factor of 2 or 3, it is still already problematic today. And with the Model 3 being planned to sell 10X times as many cars per year, the problem gets exponentially worse. The plans for the supercharger network don't have that same predicted growth curve.
Thus: This practice simply does not scale well.
Even a small percentage of folks using the network in a way it is not advertised for will ruin the system for folks attempting to use it in the way it is described.
Finally, I don't see the statements to the effect of "I don't recommend a lot of people do this" as congruous with planning on doing this yourself, but actually rather hypocritical.
ETHICS
This word has been thrown around on this thread a lot. And there are certainly personal ethics vs. "community" ethics. I'm of the opinion that the latter can be shaped by significant opinion, as well as the other factors acting on a situation.
There are those who feel that any personal gain they can make that's not technically legislated against is OK. In many cases these are people who focus on short-term gain, and ignore long term consequences.
Thus there are things that may not be immediately personally advantageous, but may be in our long term best interests: I support a use tax so that EV owners support road maintenance. I don't park in chagring location reserved for EV's if I don't need a charge. I charge at home where I can to allow others in more dire circumstances to take advantage of the limiting public charging infrastructure about.
We are on the frontier of the Wild West of EV Adoption. As such, what we do now as a community can shape what's commonly accepted etiquette, the reputation of the growing EV community to others, the policies that Tesla (and other manufactures closely watching these developments) ultimately settle on, the ownership experience of our fellow EV'ers, etc...
As such: acting in a way that focuses on personal short-term gain may ultimately do the EV community long term harm.
Certainly Tesla has not prohibited "saving a buck" (to use the OP's term) in their wording, but there is The Letter Of The Law, and there is the Spirit Of The Law... just because something is not specifically prohibited does not mean it's desired or welcomed. You'll note there is zero marketing around the superchargers as a way to avoid paying for electricity at home. See also: the buffet illustration mentioned previously.
CONCLUSION
The OP asked for opinions here. And, given that there are no policies from Tesla or others that specifically address some of these issues, collective opinion and our own integrity are what will shape behavior for the moment.
It's my opinion that there are a number of factors, as outlined above, that lead to the ultimate conclusion of: Taking advantage of the supercharger network to charger your vehicle for typical day-to-day use when you could reasonably arrange for your own charging is not sustainable long term.
(Finally, I disagree with those who opted to level personal insults at the OP either directly or via analogy)
There are some things that have changed in the landscape since then, and a number of things the same. One thing that the previous thread useful for is that it provides a bit of sense of history surrounding the Supercharger rollout.
One statement the original poster said that I think bears response to:
No2DinosaurFuel said:
This isn't the case for many responses here. If you read them, they are based on what they believe is "reasonable" for us as the EV community as a whole. My comments here fall in that category.
Folks here have made much of the ethics of the matter versus the practicality, the intent, the potential impact, etc... And while folks have taken absolute stances base on one or more of them, the reality is that it's likely a combination of all of them:
TESLA'S INTENT-
This is something that we can only go by based on what is stated to us. For many that's just whats printed on the website at any given moment. For others of us, we've seen/heard Elon and JB speak, have seen the Supercharger network layout evolve over time, have seen the revisions in printed statements, etc....
The theme from the inception was "Superchargers along travel corridors to enable long distance road trips, charging at origination/destination locations". Others have provided various quotes from he website (current and past) that speak to this. The supercharger sites were planned outside population centers along heavy travel routes.
Admittedly things have evolved: Supercharger spacing/density planning has changed to shorten distances in between, to accomodate the cars with less range. Tesla has also added some superchargers within city borders, ostensibly to support those in apartments, condos, etc... to have an option if they could not provide their own, or if the out-of-town traveler needed a quick turnaround.
Thus it appears that the intent in this all was: to provide charging options for those who could not reasonably provide their own, namely when on the road or when your residence did not allow for it.
I find it highly probable that Tesla may be forced to factor this behavior in at a future date, and the resulting policy change will be less favorable for us all.
PRACTICALITY
There are a couple of aspects to this. One is individual practicality. Some people feel the idea works for them (or are determined to make it work), for the amount of cost avoided. I don't see that a compelling reason, but each person has a different value scale. As has been mentioned, the convienance of starting off each morning with a full charge is a model that may need to be experienced to be appreciated... but it's one that Tesla has marketed as a benefit.
The other aspect of this is the (im)practicality of this being adopted by even a minority percentage of the user base. We will be in the neighborhood of 100K S's on the road. If just 1 out of 10 folks do this once r twice a week for a full charge, that's 10 thousand cars that will occupy a charging stall for for an hour or two. That's 10,000-20,000 charge-hours. There are something like 2500 charging stalls out there today. Given that many folks doing this would opt to do so coming to/from work, that's a couple hours every weekday morning and evening where every stall would be occupied by a person simply avoiding charging at home.
Even if my estimates are off by a factor of 2 or 3, it is still already problematic today. And with the Model 3 being planned to sell 10X times as many cars per year, the problem gets exponentially worse. The plans for the supercharger network don't have that same predicted growth curve.
Thus: This practice simply does not scale well.
Even a small percentage of folks using the network in a way it is not advertised for will ruin the system for folks attempting to use it in the way it is described.
Finally, I don't see the statements to the effect of "I don't recommend a lot of people do this" as congruous with planning on doing this yourself, but actually rather hypocritical.
ETHICS
This word has been thrown around on this thread a lot. And there are certainly personal ethics vs. "community" ethics. I'm of the opinion that the latter can be shaped by significant opinion, as well as the other factors acting on a situation.
There are those who feel that any personal gain they can make that's not technically legislated against is OK. In many cases these are people who focus on short-term gain, and ignore long term consequences.
Thus there are things that may not be immediately personally advantageous, but may be in our long term best interests: I support a use tax so that EV owners support road maintenance. I don't park in chagring location reserved for EV's if I don't need a charge. I charge at home where I can to allow others in more dire circumstances to take advantage of the limiting public charging infrastructure about.
We are on the frontier of the Wild West of EV Adoption. As such, what we do now as a community can shape what's commonly accepted etiquette, the reputation of the growing EV community to others, the policies that Tesla (and other manufactures closely watching these developments) ultimately settle on, the ownership experience of our fellow EV'ers, etc...
As such: acting in a way that focuses on personal short-term gain may ultimately do the EV community long term harm.
Certainly Tesla has not prohibited "saving a buck" (to use the OP's term) in their wording, but there is The Letter Of The Law, and there is the Spirit Of The Law... just because something is not specifically prohibited does not mean it's desired or welcomed. You'll note there is zero marketing around the superchargers as a way to avoid paying for electricity at home. See also: the buffet illustration mentioned previously.
CONCLUSION
The OP asked for opinions here. And, given that there are no policies from Tesla or others that specifically address some of these issues, collective opinion and our own integrity are what will shape behavior for the moment.
It's my opinion that there are a number of factors, as outlined above, that lead to the ultimate conclusion of: Taking advantage of the supercharger network to charger your vehicle for typical day-to-day use when you could reasonably arrange for your own charging is not sustainable long term.
(Finally, I disagree with those who opted to level personal insults at the OP either directly or via analogy)
Last edited:
That's exactly my point. People feel it is unethical. I take no issue with anyone expressing an opinion, nor do I take issue with people passionately going to great lengths to justify their opinion. I take issue with the repeated efforts to imply opinion as fact, supported only by the same few few lines of Tesla marketing like they're some kind of inalienable truths.
Put another way, its all about KISS. Has Tesla been working a hidden, multi-year campaign to sprinkle their direction, intent, and ethical perspective on local supercharging throughout various webpages like some grand easter-egg treasure hunt, with hopes that someone might one day put together the clues on some internet forum and explain all the mysteries that came before?
Or are they just trying to sell more cars by telling people they can drive all over the place in one breath and telling them they can charge right down the street in the next?
hans
P631
No question. And if they had even a marginally competent model, they considered that small percentage of owners who would go out of their way to save a buck or three by local supercharging. I'd guess that the only thing they didn't fully consider in their model was the limo services that plagued Hatwthorne before the expansion (and other places like Amsterdam).
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
And it's abundantly clear that everyone is going to see this issue the way they want to see it. Other information be damned. 
Cottonwood
Roadster#433, Model S#S37
I agree with the vast majority of what Bonnie said at Supercharging to reduce ownership cost of a Model S. - Page 22 and scaesare said immediately following.
The biggest point is that Tesla made reasonable assumptions about use in modeling the cost to them of providing "Free Supercharging."
Initially, Supercharging was deployed to allow Model S's to drive long distances, and Tesla succeeded fabulously there. It will take time to fill in the routes, but where Tesla has done that, drive time is a little slower than an ICE, but not much, and I find the Supercharger pace very relaxing and comfortable.
Next came the issue of how urban users without an easy way to install "home" charging could own and drive an EV. This was solved with urban Superchargers in China in particular, but also in places like London, UK. Tesla used the urban Superchargers to increase market share where home charging is difficult.
Personally, I find it a poor use of my time to save electrical costs at the rate of minimum wages or less, and I'm retired. One of the truly delightful parts of driving an EV is that it's ready for me in the morning, and the time it takes me to charge each day is only about 20-40 seconds, about 10-20 seconds to plug in when I arrive at my garage and about 10-20 seconds to unplug. OTOH, the concept of "free" is so powerful to some that it does not matter how much of their personal time they expend...
What ever happens with patterns of usage, Tesla will work very hard to make sure there are enough Superchargers and Stalls to avoid queueing. Tesla really wants to avoid the bad PR of lines at a Supercharger. Where this was talked about the most was at Hawthorne. Queues at Hawthorne were blown away with the Hawthorne expansion and the opening of Culver City and Redondo Beach. The other Supercharge Site with noticeable queueing is San Juan Capistrano. Hopefully, a lot of that will go away with the San Diego Supercharger opening which will eliminate the need for many to charge well beyond 80% at San Juan Capistrano to make it to San Diego and back. Also, I expect that we will see more Orange County Superchargers this year to off load San Juan Capistrano.
Many have commented about the frequent "local users" of Hawthorne and San Juan Capistrano. Those ad hoc reports are the kinds of usage that are being discussed in this thread. If the number of locals "wasting their time" by getting free electricity is at a modest level, Tesla can ignore it. However, if it happens frequently enough to have a significant effect on Supercharger construction budgets and/or electric costs (I believe the former is much more of an issue than the latter), then Tesla will probably institute some sort of billing for users who are triggering these excess expenses.
I doubt that Tesla will do anything to charge existing owners for Supercharger use. What I do think may happen is for Tesla to institute a modest price for Supercharging beyond need at some date in the future for new sales. It will be some sort of model that will allow moderate, free use of local Superchargers. There will be some sort of price for beyond moderate use, perhaps with escalating pricing to deter extreme abuse. To support urban users, Tesla will also offer free Supercharger use for those that can prove they have no possibility of home charging.
Bottom line, I hope that Tesla owners who want to save a few dollars a week, make less than minimum wages on their time invested, and play games with the letter of the law, don't force Tesla into a pricing model for Superchargers to reduce abuses to the Supercharger System. Even if Tesla is forced into a pricing model to curb such abuse, I trust it will be implemented in a way that does not have any, or very little, effect on reasonable users.
The biggest point is that Tesla made reasonable assumptions about use in modeling the cost to them of providing "Free Supercharging."
Initially, Supercharging was deployed to allow Model S's to drive long distances, and Tesla succeeded fabulously there. It will take time to fill in the routes, but where Tesla has done that, drive time is a little slower than an ICE, but not much, and I find the Supercharger pace very relaxing and comfortable.
Next came the issue of how urban users without an easy way to install "home" charging could own and drive an EV. This was solved with urban Superchargers in China in particular, but also in places like London, UK. Tesla used the urban Superchargers to increase market share where home charging is difficult.
Personally, I find it a poor use of my time to save electrical costs at the rate of minimum wages or less, and I'm retired. One of the truly delightful parts of driving an EV is that it's ready for me in the morning, and the time it takes me to charge each day is only about 20-40 seconds, about 10-20 seconds to plug in when I arrive at my garage and about 10-20 seconds to unplug. OTOH, the concept of "free" is so powerful to some that it does not matter how much of their personal time they expend...
What ever happens with patterns of usage, Tesla will work very hard to make sure there are enough Superchargers and Stalls to avoid queueing. Tesla really wants to avoid the bad PR of lines at a Supercharger. Where this was talked about the most was at Hawthorne. Queues at Hawthorne were blown away with the Hawthorne expansion and the opening of Culver City and Redondo Beach. The other Supercharge Site with noticeable queueing is San Juan Capistrano. Hopefully, a lot of that will go away with the San Diego Supercharger opening which will eliminate the need for many to charge well beyond 80% at San Juan Capistrano to make it to San Diego and back. Also, I expect that we will see more Orange County Superchargers this year to off load San Juan Capistrano.
Many have commented about the frequent "local users" of Hawthorne and San Juan Capistrano. Those ad hoc reports are the kinds of usage that are being discussed in this thread. If the number of locals "wasting their time" by getting free electricity is at a modest level, Tesla can ignore it. However, if it happens frequently enough to have a significant effect on Supercharger construction budgets and/or electric costs (I believe the former is much more of an issue than the latter), then Tesla will probably institute some sort of billing for users who are triggering these excess expenses.
I doubt that Tesla will do anything to charge existing owners for Supercharger use. What I do think may happen is for Tesla to institute a modest price for Supercharging beyond need at some date in the future for new sales. It will be some sort of model that will allow moderate, free use of local Superchargers. There will be some sort of price for beyond moderate use, perhaps with escalating pricing to deter extreme abuse. To support urban users, Tesla will also offer free Supercharger use for those that can prove they have no possibility of home charging.
Bottom line, I hope that Tesla owners who want to save a few dollars a week, make less than minimum wages on their time invested, and play games with the letter of the law, don't force Tesla into a pricing model for Superchargers to reduce abuses to the Supercharger System. Even if Tesla is forced into a pricing model to curb such abuse, I trust it will be implemented in a way that does not have any, or very little, effect on reasonable users.
Similar threads
- Question
