-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla making HUGE mistake with Superchargers
- Thread starter Vicj
- Start date
And definitely a retrofit. If you look at images in the site threadSort of both? It is a retrofit of the Fort Worth, TX - Eastchase Parkway site which only opened 35 days ago.
Find Us | Tesla
Use the interactive Find Us map to locate Tesla charging stations, service centers, galleries and stores on the go.www.tesla.com
Supercharger - Fort Worth, TX - Eastchase Pkwy
New EV charging station https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/Project/TABS2023018512 1111 Eastchase Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76120 Edit add: TESLA Installation of Tesla EV Charging Station · INSTALL (16) TESLA CHARGING POSTS · INSTALL (4) TESLA SUPERCHARGER CABINETS · INSTALL (1) 2000A...
teslamotorsclub.com
you can see a post with a photo from 6/23 with Tesla only
Supercharger - Fort Worth, TX - Eastchase Pkwy
New EV charging station https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/Project/TABS2023018512 1111 Eastchase Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76120 Edit add: TESLA Installation of Tesla EV Charging Station · INSTALL (16) TESLA CHARGING POSTS · INSTALL (4) TESLA SUPERCHARGER CABINETS · INSTALL (1) 2000A...
teslamotorsclub.com
and then a post with a photo from 8/11 with Magic Dock installed
Supercharger - Fort Worth, TX - Eastchase Pkwy
New EV charging station https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/Project/TABS2023018512 1111 Eastchase Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76120 Edit add: TESLA Installation of Tesla EV Charging Station · INSTALL (16) TESLA CHARGING POSTS · INSTALL (4) TESLA SUPERCHARGER CABINETS · INSTALL (1) 2000A...
teslamotorsclub.com
I've used a site in NY. App could be a bit better for first timers and I had the charging fail to start first time on my second visit. (Kona).
I'm not sure why you and everyone else seems to be saying this. There are plenty of V2 Superchargers that are open to non-Teslas in Europe. The technology is definitely there to allow for it.
If you want an example, I was clicking around London on the map and Uxbridge, (which is a V2 location), is open to non-Teslas.
Well if anything, as I recall, Ford's announcement specifically said that they would only be able to use V3s.
So while it might be possible to add CCS support to V2s it doesn't seem like that is in the plans.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
I haven't seen that, I HAVE seen people keying in on the fact that there were about 12,000 v3s when the original announcements came out. Since we are not there yet all we can do is assume and this is the assumption people have come up with. We'll know for sure when the adapters are, hopefully, released
What do you mean we aren't there yet? In June when this was announced there were 13,290 V3 Superchargers in North America. That has only increased since then.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Yeah, we'll only know for sure when we can actually show up at a v2 Supercharger with our Polestar and try our new adapter there... Or at least when the specific info shows up in the Tesla or Ford app
I have to agree with OP and several others in this thread, I think this is a huge mistake for Tesla. Going further I think this opens them up to a class action lawsuit by shareholders. Let me explain.
A publicly traded companies officers owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty to their shareholders. They are legally expected to put the welfare and best interests of the company ahead of others. With that said opening up superchargers to other manufacturers has several obvious outcomes:
Pros:
-Maybe some miniscule at best charging revenue?
-Contribution to adoption of NACS as a charging standard?
That's really all I can see are there any other actual benefits missing here?
Cons;
-Increased usage leading to customer dissatisfaction.
-Increased maintenance via additional use. Presumably offset by charging revenue.
-Loss of sales. This is the big one, this WILL cost Tesla sales. This alone is reason enough to not open up the charging network. They exist as a company to sell cars. That is how they generate revenue for their shareholders. Taking an action that will absolutely reduce sales for no offsetting gain is flat out a violation of their responsibilities.
A publicly traded companies officers owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty to their shareholders. They are legally expected to put the welfare and best interests of the company ahead of others. With that said opening up superchargers to other manufacturers has several obvious outcomes:
Pros:
-Maybe some miniscule at best charging revenue?
-Contribution to adoption of NACS as a charging standard?
That's really all I can see are there any other actual benefits missing here?
Cons;
-Increased usage leading to customer dissatisfaction.
-Increased maintenance via additional use. Presumably offset by charging revenue.
-Loss of sales. This is the big one, this WILL cost Tesla sales. This alone is reason enough to not open up the charging network. They exist as a company to sell cars. That is how they generate revenue for their shareholders. Taking an action that will absolutely reduce sales for no offsetting gain is flat out a violation of their responsibilities.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
You mean "company's"
And as stated before, they are promoting the company's mission statement so how can that be going against the company's best interest?
If would be fun to see this in court, love to see some lawyer NOT come off as an ambulance chaser trying to sue the company, and what PROOF could they possibly compile to indicate they had lost shareholder's money??
And as stated before, they are promoting the company's mission statement so how can that be going against the company's best interest?
If would be fun to see this in court, love to see some lawyer NOT come off as an ambulance chaser trying to sue the company, and what PROOF could they possibly compile to indicate they had lost shareholder's money??
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
If this adds "charging revenue", even "minuscule", then where's the harm exactly?
You've not demonstrated your position that this will reduce sales. In fact, Tesla's auto sales have increased at a higher rate than their SC additions, so they are clearly not a limiting factor.
I would argue the opposite: this will increase sales. The other OEMs are going to setup their own chargers with NACS, so now all Teslas will gain the benefit of additional (albeit off-brand) charging stations.
No shareholder lawsuit will prevail without overwhelming evidence of gross malfeasance.
If added charging revenue is < sales lost revenue the harm is loss of revenue.
Fair enough I haven't demonstrated that point, candidly I felt it was self evident. Obviously we have no sales numbers as it has not happened yet but right now the supercharger network is objectively the best, fastest (averaged across all chargers), most reliable network. The recent F150 lighting charging article (as well as numerous others) are demonstrating for people that distance EV charging is simply not at an acceptable level. Tesla distance charging, however, is. I know my personal opinion and what I tell others as a Tesla owner, and what I hear *numerous* other people say is that non-Tesla EVs are simply not a viable purchase option explicitly because of the lack of a viable distance charging network. I have literally lost count of how many people I have heard say that or something similar. When you remove that differentiation either through construction of a viable alternative or allowing others to charge on superchargers you remove that sales driver for Tesla. I have no clue how to objectively estimate those numbers.
Re: Increased sales. A couple points, the only way that other OEMs setting up their own chargers would increase Tesla sales is if people felt the tesla charging infrastructure was insufficient or too costly. An increase in sales is from someone buying who would not have done so otherwise. The second point is most, maybe all?, other OEMs operate through a dealership model. They would have to decide if they are going to install a charging network at a corporate level independent of their dealer model or through their dealerships. If the former then their cost and will be significant, and something they have never done before. If the later then they face significant obstacles in cooperation, forcing the cost onto those dealers, and resistance. Heck OEMs are already seeing huge problems with dealers over EVs with information/sales/markups/etc.
There really is no rational reason to think this does anything other than lower Tesla sales. The only question is whether the lowered sales is small enough to be offset by increased interest/sales over time or if it has a net negative effect.
Easy, if the mission statement leads to a material decrease in company revenue and value that is directly against their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. If Tesla didn't want to put shareholders first then should have remained private.
@EvilNuff It seems to me you are overlooking a hard practical reality, because you are thinking of things in hypothetical terms. You are considering both car sales and revenue from Superchargers as ethereal things that can increase or decrease by infinite amounts with no physical limits.
But which thing has more actual physical capacity to increase or decrease? Many of the Supercharger stalls throughout the middle of the U.S. have a significant portion of the stalls sitting unused. If cars of other brands used those, they would be paying and increasing revenue. And new stations are being built, opening up more capacity for additional revenue.
But Tesla already sells their production capacity of cars. And they are working on building new factories, where those will also sell all of their output. There isn't that much flex room of "selling cars" to move very much because they have plenty of demand.
And there is the secondary effect. There is still a large population that ridicules electric vehicles because most people they know don't have them. Greater adoption from more sources, normalizes it as a regular product, which continues to expand the entire market, which contributes to more sales among ALL makers.
You are making that mistake, where you see "The Market" as ONLY consisting of electric vehicles and see that as a zero sum game, where if someone purchases a Chevy EV, you think that automatically subtracted from a Tesla EV sold. But might that Chevy EV have been a substitute for a Chevy gas car? Or a Honda gas car? Yes, it might. That is, in fact, what the data indicates, as the % share of electrics as part of the overall car market is growing rapidly. So Tesla doesn't necessarily lose a car sale at all when someone buys an electric car from another brand. Often that is truly extra and additive.
But which thing has more actual physical capacity to increase or decrease? Many of the Supercharger stalls throughout the middle of the U.S. have a significant portion of the stalls sitting unused. If cars of other brands used those, they would be paying and increasing revenue. And new stations are being built, opening up more capacity for additional revenue.
But Tesla already sells their production capacity of cars. And they are working on building new factories, where those will also sell all of their output. There isn't that much flex room of "selling cars" to move very much because they have plenty of demand.
And there is the secondary effect. There is still a large population that ridicules electric vehicles because most people they know don't have them. Greater adoption from more sources, normalizes it as a regular product, which continues to expand the entire market, which contributes to more sales among ALL makers.
You are making that mistake, where you see "The Market" as ONLY consisting of electric vehicles and see that as a zero sum game, where if someone purchases a Chevy EV, you think that automatically subtracted from a Tesla EV sold. But might that Chevy EV have been a substitute for a Chevy gas car? Or a Honda gas car? Yes, it might. That is, in fact, what the data indicates, as the % share of electrics as part of the overall car market is growing rapidly. So Tesla doesn't necessarily lose a car sale at all when someone buys an electric car from another brand. Often that is truly extra and additive.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
You can't have it both ways. If lack of L3 charging capability will harm demand, then bountiful L3 chargers will increase demand.
Ford has the Blue Oval Network (really a partnership with the existing EV charge networks) and is requiring dealerships to install DCFC to be eligible to sell Ford EVs. Rivian has hundreds of "Adventure Network" charge stations in remote locations. And while ChargePoint, EA, et al may have dubious service records, they are switching their 50,000+ stations to NACS.
I'm not often called "irrational", even when drunk, so thanks for that.
With Tesla sales increasing by nearly 50% YoY, I'm not sure how you're going to prove that L3 congestion is hurting sales until there are fields full of abandoned, dead Teslas and protests outside their headquarters.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
This topic pops up frequently, here's another one from today:
teslamotorsclub.com
This thread touched an idea I'd not considered: it was unlikely that the US would support multiple charging standards in the long term. This move by Tesla cements NACS as the standard, preserving the value invested in the SC network.
Real reasons behind selling us out to Ford in supercharging?
I would love to know the real story behind Elon letting Ford in on the supercharger game after they worked so hard for this competitive advantage. Political pressure? Pure profit? It would seem that Tesla drivers themselves will be the losers in this deal as wait times increase. Unless you...
teslamotorsclub.com
This thread touched an idea I'd not considered: it was unlikely that the US would support multiple charging standards in the long term. This move by Tesla cements NACS as the standard, preserving the value invested in the SC network.
This topic pops up frequently, here's another one from today:
Real reasons behind selling us out to Ford in supercharging?
I would love to know the real story behind Elon letting Ford in on the supercharger game after they worked so hard for this competitive advantage. Political pressure? Pure profit? It would seem that Tesla drivers themselves will be the losers in this deal as wait times increase. Unless you...
This thread touched an idea I'd not considered: it was unlikely that the US would support multiple charging standards in the long term. This move by Tesla cements NACS as the standard, preserving the value invested in the SC network.
I think enforcing a standard was a longer-term risk. The nearer-term risk was competition.
EA is still in Stage 3 of 4, with Stage 4 starting next year, which means improved coverage. I've used ElectrifyAmerica and while flawed , it has worked and allowed me to travel in a way I wouldn't have been able to do without it.
However, that would have been it. Tesla could have breathed out if EA couldn't get its act together.
(It's noteworthy that the first 3 approved EA Stage each contained increased wording in relation to maintaining chargers, as regulators clearly saw the problems).
Instead we got NEVI, which not only provides billions more for CCS1 (more than Dieselgate), but NEVI also adds requirements to do things right and opens up to more companies, so is a bigger threat to the moat.
Opening up the plug meant Tesla had the potential to get indirect access to NEVI funding by getting its plug onto CCS chargers, and opening up its network means it can now get direct access to NEVI funding. So far it's 12 out of 54 projects in Pennsylvania and 2 out of 7 in Maine. It hasn't bid in Oregon. Not bad so far.
However, I think it got the best it could get, having its plug adopted, which not only avoids the potential competitive risks, but opens up more possibilities in home and destination charging, with its large install (6+) program offering metering/payment management of plug-and-charge L2 for a 1c/kWh fee. (I'm very excited the possibilities standardization will offer in L2, not simply for Tesla).
Funny you should mention that, the "blue oval" network is one of the biggest reasons that Tesla should keep their network closed. That network and the "required" chargers to be installed are so insufficient, low quality, and poorly maintained that they are just a farce. Take a look sometime at all the stations near you in blue oval, the overwhelming majority are just unusably bad. (As Ford's CEO recently famously found out.) Their dealerships already are resisting adoption of EVs (because they make the dealers less money) every way they can, you can bet that mandatory DCFCs' will be the cheapest they can get away with (read slow, low # of stalls, etc). If their agreement with Ford allows they will be installed where not accessible when the dealership is not open as well most likely.
I wasn't calling you irrational, sorry if I came across that way. I try not to insult in these threads.
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
Similar threads
- Poll
