Tesla Model 3 is fundamentally changing the company

[felixculpas]

I feel sorry for anyone living close to a gas station with all the toxic fumes they vent and certainly don't miss the experience while filling up weekly.

Though I realize some like the smell of napalm in the morning, well diesel to be more precise. However, I would implore everyone to also consider the environment in their decisions/motivators and not just fluctuating variables such as the cost of supercharging vs gas. How this could be construed as the last straw is beyond me. When we start thinking of ourselves more as custodians of the planet, our decisions are influenced for the better.

What is the 7th Generation principle and why do you need to know about it?

I realize that when you enter the general marketplace (as with the M3) the rules change and more traditional purchase decisions and strategies are employed that may place greater emphasis on current costs and there is a sticker shock as well but when you look at projected costs over 5 years, an EV even in Canada (where gas prices are higher), continues to make a lot of sense. Just THREE metropolitan areas are home to more than 1/3 of all Canadians and represents about 13M people. More so, 82% of Canadians live in medium to large sized cities. This is what accounts for greater urban sprawl and also why Canada is a great fit for EV's for all those in suburbia and beyond who are commuting significant distances. This also produces generally higher housing prices which can be responsible for a decline in home owners. Road trips? Who has time for all these road trips? Well, better that than fly.

In 2015, the WSJ reported US home ownership rate at 63.9% with 29.3% outright owning. Canada in contrast had 69% with 41.4% owning. Though I think HELOC's confuse those numbers. So worse case scenario, lets call it a wash.

Regardless and as previously mentioned, both countries are easily capable of outstripping Tesla's output.

2.6M EV's are expected to be sold globally this year. The technology will only keep improving and the impact of sales volumes will perpetuate that as well as drive changes in public perception and support infrastructure.

Or you could buy a post-dieselgate vehicle. Or a Bollinger with no convenience or safety features for $60k/60kWh, presuming they ever find someone to manufacture it. Or keep rewarding companies like with a Toyota hybrid that have done little to innovate in the past decade despite their marketing otherwise - as their business model is all about extracting the most money. Let's face it. Automakers don't have our or the planet's best interests at heart and leapfrogging Tesla's battery technology isn't going to be easy despite what their advertising rhetoric might suggest.

2018 finally saw the majority of this planet acknowledging climate change despite unfavorable political turmoil. The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. EV's are an obvious solution.

I've owned a hybrid SUV for 7 years. Pretty useless in Canadian winters as it wouldn't use the battery if the engine gets cold which is exactly what happens when you are using the battery. It was a little aggravating. Perhaps in warmer climates, a hybrid would be a better choice than diesel but ultimately, BEV is where we need to be.

Choice is always that of the consumer. I chose an innovator. A disruptor. Someone dedicated to sustainable transportation. A startup in an almost impenetrable industry. I don't wear that as a badge of moral superiority and I certainly wasn't early to the party. I chose to reward Tesla by purchasing their product as a relatively early adopter given it made long term environmental and economic sense to do so. Early adoption comes with some trade-offs.

I suspect there will be a small percentage of buyers that feel betrayed as SC hikes run contrary with their reasons to get into the game and that's probably inevitable. Can't please all the people...I think we must be the pickiest bunch of early adopters ever.

 

[Nocturnal]

Yup. Tesla is no longer a boutique company. Now they are mainstream.

I have done about 11k miles in a bit over 3 months, 95% on SC. I have no other real option.

Luckily I have Free Lifetime, but the GF only has 6 months of free SC, and it will be a big cost when it runs out. Our apartment does not offer charging and they are not at all receptive to it (spoke to building manager and emailed/called high levels at parking management company. My office does not have it, and I am on the road visiting clients so much.

As for moving, we have a fantastic deal and other comparable buildings would be 50% more in rent. Boston is a crazy city for rent and we luckily have an amazing deal in our building. Not paying 50% more in rent to have charging...

We are the use case of Urban SC; we frequent them almost daily, at least every other day between us. Without them, we could not own a Tesla.

But man, am I sick of Appleebees and Olive Garden dinners!

Can you harass your employer to install chargers? Even if you can charge on 110 the entire work day that would do wonders for your situation.

 

[ricohman]

I feel sorry for anyone living close to a gas station with all the toxic fumes they vent and certainly don't miss the experience while filling up weekly.

Though I realize some like the smell of napalm in the morning, well diesel to be more precise. However, I would implore everyone to also consider the environment in their decisions/motivators and not just fluctuating variables such as the cost of supercharging vs gas. How this could be construed as the last straw is beyond me. When we start thinking of ourselves more as custodians of the planet, our decisions are influenced for the better.

What is the 7th Generation principle and why do you need to know about it?

I realize that when you enter the general marketplace (as with the M3) the rules change and more traditional purchase decisions and strategies are employed that may place greater emphasis on current costs and there is a sticker shock as well but when you look at projected costs over 5 years, an EV even in Canada (where gas prices are higher), continues to make a lot of sense. Just THREE metropolitan areas are home to more than 1/3 of all Canadians and represents about 13M people. More so, 82% of Canadians live in medium to large sized cities. This is what accounts for greater urban sprawl and also why Canada is a great fit for EV's for all those in suburbia and beyond who are commuting significant distances. This also produces generally higher housing prices which can be responsible for a decline in home owners. Road trips? Who has time for all these road trips? Well, better that than fly.

In 2015, the WSJ reported US home ownership rate at 63.9% with 29.3% outright owning. Canada in contrast had 69% with 41.4% owning. Though I think HELOC's confuse those numbers. So worse case scenario, lets call it a wash.

Regardless and as previously mentioned, both countries are easily capable of outstripping Tesla's output.

2.6M EV's are expected to be sold globally this year. The technology will only keep improving and the impact of sales volumes will perpetuate that as well as drive changes in public perception and support infrastructure.

Or you could buy a post-dieselgate vehicle. Or a Bollinger with no convenience or safety features for $60k/60kWh, presuming they ever find someone to manufacture it. Or keep rewarding companies like with a Toyota hybrid that have done little to innovate in the past decade despite their marketing otherwise - as their business model is all about extracting the most money. Let's face it. Automakers don't have our or the planet's best interests at heart and leapfrogging Tesla's battery technology isn't going to be easy despite what their advertising rhetoric might suggest.

2018 finally saw the majority of this planet acknowledging climate change despite unfavorable political turmoil. The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. EV's are an obvious solution.

I've owned a hybrid SUV for 7 years. Pretty useless in Canadian winters as it wouldn't use the battery if the engine gets cold which is exactly what happens when you are using the battery. It was a little aggravating. Perhaps in warmer climates, a hybrid would be a better choice than diesel but ultimately, BEV is where we need to be.

Choice is always that of the consumer. I chose an innovator. A disruptor. Someone dedicated to sustainable transportation. A startup in an almost impenetrable industry. I don't wear that as a badge of moral superiority and I certainly wasn't early to the party. I chose to reward Tesla by purchasing their product as a relatively early adopter given it made long term environmental and economic sense to do so. Early adoption comes with some trade-offs.

I suspect there will be a small percentage of buyers that feel betrayed as SC hikes run contrary with their reasons to get into the game and that's probably inevitable. Can't please all the people...I think we must be the pickiest bunch of early adopters ever.

I should point out that the Toyota Prius is by far the most popular taxi in Regina and in many Saskatchewan cities. At the same time the Model 3 is priced out of reach of most working Canadians at 60k+ for the cheapest one. Hybrids make a lot of sense in a place that if you get stuck you can die if you have no power source.
I am buying mine in the spring as it is far to cold to drive it home from Calgary and where would I charge on the way?. Unless I want to bring it home in my car hauler. And It will sit in storage most of the winter as it would get damaged on the icy rutted roads.
Tesla needs to design a vehicle for northern climates.

 

[StellarRat]

I'm still trying to figure why anyone would buy any EV if they didn't have a private charger of some kind?? That said, I got by for six years in my Leaf using only a 110v socket in my garage. Unless you're going over 50 miles per day consistently a car with as large a power reserve as a Model 3 could be able to get by with just a long extension cord and a wall or outdoor socket.

 

[WATT TF]

I'm sorry you find facts condescending



Yes. Mostly in houses

In fact over 70% of the entire country lives in houses (70-what percent depends if you count things like mobile homes as houses)

Apartment dwellers are only about 20% of the US population according to the ACS (from the US Census Bureau)




They are imaginary- since the real world numbers are the opposite of your claim.



Yes, that 20% of the population may have difficultly.

Though- again, the # in real life is even lower, as at least SOME of that 20% DO have access to chargers at home be it garages that some apt. complexes offer residents, or public chargers some complexes have installed. Some more will have access to chargers at work that they can use in lieu of a home charger.

So the % of americans for whom SCs are the ONLY real option is quite the minority. Maybe 10%? 15 tops.

But let's pretend for a second -all- that 20% simply can't own a Tesla at these SC prices (which is also nonsense, math wise but let's go with it).

That means of the ~17 million cars sold each year Tesla can ONLY target 80% of that audience. Or about 12.6 million cars.

Teslas max output in the US is 500,000 cars in a year.

I think they'll be ok.





or when you don't base your comments on fake statistics like claiming 80% of the US lives in shared housing.


Here's some sourcing for #s BTW, lest you try and argue your #s any further-
New Census Data Show Differences Between Urban and Rural Populations



Hence why the national average is around 70-something percent.

Your math is valid if 100% of our country's population could afford a Tesla, but that is not the case....

Anyways, I'll use your numbers to once again prove my point. I live in Chicago, work 25 miles away in the suburbs, and often travel to rural areas for weeks at a time for work. Also worth noting I am surrounded by millions of inhabitants without a house for at least a mile. During the average day i see 15-20 Teslas in Chicago, 0-1 Teslas during my commute to the suburbs, and I have seen 2 or 3 over the course of months spent in rural America.

Did you actually read the document you linked to your post? No where does it state the words "apartment" or "condo". What it does claim is the trend of urbanization I was originally referring to - it states in summary that over half our population lived in rural areas in 1910, and now it is less than 1 in 5.

What you fail to acknowledge is a higher percentage of your "20%" can afford a M3.

If the United States had 100 people, based on your data 20 live in apartments and 80 live in houses - fails to acknowledge urban vs. rural, but whatever.

What I am suggesting is 75% of the 20 people can afford a Tesla (people living in big cities), and 10% of the 80 people can afford a Tesla. The results resemble my experiences - 15 people in the urban city can afford a Tesla while only 8 in the rural area can, despite the fact that the rural area has 4x more people.

What good is your "80%" if the vast majority of them do not plan on spending more than 20-25k on a car? The demographic of your "20%" on the other hand is much different...

 

[Knightshade]

What you fail to acknowledge is a higher percentage of your "20%" can afford a M3.

This is called assuming facts not in evidence. You've presented literally nothing to support this claim.

If the United States had 100 people, based on your data 20 live in apartments and 80 live in houses - fails to acknowledge urban vs. rural, but whatever.

I mean- no, it doesn't. Because the link (which again you appear to have either not read, or not understood), gives you exactly the difference, in numbers between those too.

78.3 percent compared with 64.6 percent

In urban areas the majority (64.6% still live in single family homes- not apartments or condos.

It's a smaller majority than rural, but still a solid majority.

so your insistence that "most" of anybody lives in apartments or condos is simply not true.

What I am suggesting is 75% of the 20 people can afford a Tesla (people living in big cities), and 10% of the 80 people can afford a Tesla.

yes, you are suggesting it- without providing a single piece of support evidence. And ignoring the fact the majority of rich urban people do not live in apartments or condos... they live in single family homes. Which typically are more expensive than apartment living. By a ratio of about 2:1 in urban areas.

Even if the one place you drive around doesn't seem like it.

The results resemble my experiences

You haven't given "results" you've given "Numbers you made up and offered no source of besides "I know some guys!"

- 15 people in the urban city can afford a Tesla while only 8 in the rural area can, despite the fact that the rural area has 4x more people.

That's great.

Except, again, most of the urban people also live in single family homes nationally

So your point continues to be unsupported by facts.

Not to mention- the more urban a buyer is the less likely they are to buy a large vehicle/truck/SUV- while these are very abundant outside of city centers... so I bet if you look into it the rural buyers tend to spend more on new cars than urban buyers.

Edit- I went and looked it up

Oh, hey, look, you were wrong again

Expenditures of urban and rural households in 2011 : Beyond the Numbers: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You'll want chart 3.
rural households spend more on average on new and used cars and trucks than urban ones.

I would strongly encourage you to spend some time researching facts before you try replying again- since you have been consistently, factually, wrong in the entire thread, and appear to be just making stuff up based on "personal experience" and then applying that to the entire US population.

Which isn't really how facts work.

What good is your "80%" if the vast majority of them do not plan on spending more than 20-25k on a car? The demographic of your "20%" on the other hand is much different...

Yeah, it's really not though.

You are mixing up "rural vs urban" with "lives in a single family home vs lives in an apartment/condo"

Those are completely different things.



And once again- the majority of people living in both places live in single family homes

 

[ricohman]

From Statistics Canada anyway.

• The majority of occupied private dwellings in Canada in 2016 were single-detached houses. Single-detached houses represented 53.6% of all dwelling types in 2016. This share has been declining over the past three decades.

 

[Knightshade]

From Statistics Canada anyway.

• The majority of occupied private dwellings in Canada in 2016 were single-detached houses. Single-detached houses represented 53.6% of all dwelling types in 2016. This share has been declining over the past three decades.

Yup- I addressed Canada briefly in post #60 on the previous page, including mentioning that while a majority there are also in single family homes it's a smaller majority than in the US....but the fact it's still being fed by the same MFG plant as the US tells us access to home charging won't be much of a limiting factor there either for customer base.

Now, if Tesla opens many more factories and starts producing many millions of cars a year rather than a few hundred thousand, lack of charging for the apartment-living minority will have a more significant impact on customer base... but given that's physically impossible for at least several years or more it's not a present major concern.... (and I expect in that time as EVs become more popular not only will urban chargers become more common, and some apt. places will begin offering chargers as a lure for tenants, but more states will pass laws like CA where it'd be illegal to stop you from installing your own charger even in shared parking lots if you wished)

 

[voip-ninja]

• Continuous staff cuts this year in order to lean up the operation.
• Slowly raising rates of SC network, in addition to fees that overall make the car comparable to driving an ICE (eliminating the fuel savings trip estimator).
• Unbelievable strain on SC network due to model 3s
• Customer service, support, and overall customer satisfaction with TESLA declined due to limited dealerships & service to handle country wide deliveries of a mass market vehicle.

Almost this entire thread has been devoted to SC price hikes but, to me, the bigger issue facing Tesla is that they are continuing to "right size" their staffing levels. For those not in the know, "right sizing" means laying people off.

When I've been at a company where layoffs became somewhat normal it seriously affected morale. Good luck convincing a salaried employee to work an extra 10 or 20 unpaid hours a week when they know that no matter how hard they work their heads might be the next ones on the chopping block.

 

[MARKM3]

Almost this entire thread has been devoted to SC price hikes but, to me, the bigger issue facing Tesla is that they are continuing to "right size" their staffing levels. For those not in the know, "right sizing" means laying people off.

When I've been at a company where layoffs became somewhat normal it seriously affected morale. Good luck convincing a salaried employee to work an extra 10 or 20 unpaid hours a week when they know that no matter how hard they work their heads might be the next ones on the chopping block.

Completely agree voip-ninja. In a big company, it makes morale much harder to manage.

 

[StealthP3D]

Gas Stations have a MUCH higher cost to operate, with acquisition of land, pumps, store, employees, etc. Why is it now that Supercharging cost the same as filling up an ICE? They are using land that is already accessible (parking lots) that should have very low lease cost, electricity that is very cheap, and equipment installation that is not that expensive in retrospect to a gas station. All while not having to have employees to manage such facility. It is clear to me they are trying to make a profit to help cover their administrative and overhead costs of the company. While technically that is not making a "Profit", they are trying to cover the costs of their gross mismanagement.

Gas stations make most of their profit from selling beer, cigarettes, soda pop, candy, etc. When there is a critical mass of EV's on the road you will see new EV charging stations following a similar business model. Some will be new installations and others will be converted gas stations. Some will sell both gas and electricity for a time.

I don't see Tesla's Superchargers as being a sign of gross mismanagement, I see it it as being a forward thinking push to provide needed infrastructure to make the EV revolution possible. Someone has to pay the transition costs and it's certainly not the people still driving the stinky cars.

Which brings up something that's been bothering me. Why do we call them ICE vehicles? Yes, I know, they have internal combustion engines. But can't we just call them "stinky cars"?

 

[MARKM3]

Gas stations make most of their profit from selling beer, cigarettes, soda pop, candy, etc. When there is a critical mass of EV's on the road you will see new EV charging stations following a similar business model. Some will be new installations and others will be converted gas stations. Some will sell both gas and electricity for a time.

I don't see Tesla's Superchargers as being a sign of gross mismanagement, I see it it as being a forward thinking push to provide needed infrastructure to make the EV revolution possible. Someone has to pay the transition costs and it's certainly not the people still driving the stinky cars.

Which brings up something that's been bothering me. Why do we call them ICE vehicles? Yes, I know, they have internal combustion engines. But can't we just call them "stinky cars"?

Agreed. Tesla's advantage is that they use the supercharging network to sale more cars, so they should try and make it a non profit and even operate it at a slight loss and call it "advertisement expense" if you think about it.

 

[Knightshade]

Agreed. Tesla's advantage is that they use the supercharging network to sale more cars, so they should try and make it a non profit and even operate it at a slight loss and call it "advertisement expense" if you think about it.

Tesla has repeatedly said the SC network isn't a profit center and never will be.

Some folks seem to not get that that still means they need to charge above just the straight electricity rate, because the hardware, location, installation, and maintenance all cost something, demand pricing costs something when their busy, and continuing to expand the network cost money as well. None of which are profit, but all of which require charging more than straight market electric rates.

 

[MARKM3]

Tesla has repeatedly said the SC network isn't a profit center and never will be.

Some folks seem to not get that that still means they need to charge above just the straight electricity rate, because the hardware, location, installation, and maintenance all cost something, demand pricing costs something when their busy, and continuing to expand the network cost money as well. None of which are profit, but all of which require charging more than straight market electric rates.

Our plant runs 24/4 and our electric bill is huge. We run during peak, off peak, and are always pulling a ton of KW/h. Our electric bill is $15,000+ per month in NC.

Guess what? Even when you factor in peak, and off peak hours, our average charge comes out to 12 cents per KW. Tesla charges 28 cents in NC to use supercharging network. So, let's just say for simplicity sakes they are doubling their money.

I don't know about you, but covering your "costs" can mean a WHOLE bunch of things. Cost can include administrative overhead, direct operating expenses, maintenance, insurance, etc. and they could be adding in payback for the SC stalls themselves. Tesla is clearly charging an inflated price now to cover the gross mismanagement of free supercharging and high overhead.

What I'm saying, is charge ONLY for the electricity that Tesla gets billed for plus the lot lease fee. That would add, depending on volume, only about 5 cents to the cost or roughly 17 cents per KW and that cost would decrease significantly with more traffic.

Tesla, since they don't advertise, should allocate what would be an Advertisement and sales budget to the SC network build out. A Supercharger is relatively cheap to build and with Tesla saving BILLIONS of dollars every year, they could add thousands every year with that money.

 

[EVM3]

interesting read

 

[Knightshade]

What I'm saying, is charge ONLY for the electricity that Tesla gets billed for plus the lot lease fee. That would add, depending on volume, only about 5 cents to the cost or roughly 17 cents per KW and that cost would decrease significantly with more traffic.

What I'm saying is that would leave $0.00 to maintain the supercharger, or cover the original equipment or labor costs to have put it in to begin with, or to fund any future expansion of this or any other supercharger site.

So what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Tesla, since they don't advertise, should allocate what would be an Advertisement and sales budget to the SC network build out. A Supercharger is relatively cheap to build and with Tesla saving BILLIONS of dollars every year, they could add thousands every year with that money.

So you want them to take money you just told us doesn't exist in the first place, and reinvest the $0.00 they spend on advertising into the supercharger network?

I hope whatever you do at your plant here in NC it doesn't involve finance

 

[MARKM3]

What I'm saying is that would leave $0.00 to maintain the supercharger, or cover the original equipment or labor costs to have put it in to begin with, or to fund any future expansion of this or any other supercharger site.

So what you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



So you want them to take money you just told us doesn't exist in the first place, and reinvest the $0.00 they spend on advertising into the supercharger network?

I hope whatever you do at your plant here in NC it doesn't involve finance

Building out the SC network is a fundamental key to Tesla selling cars, AKA advertisement. The fact that they put them in malls, big stops, and off busy highways is great for their brand recognition.

I am not advocating for them to go out of business operating the SC network at a loss, nor did I say they shouldn't charge for their operation and maintenance. They should charge the bare essentials and not charge a 100% markup in order to cover their administrative overhead.

 

[drj3]

When it comes to Tesla setting the cost of supercharging they say they don't want it to be a profit center, but they likely no longer want it to be a major cost center. Since perhaps 50% or more of the cars using the superchargers still pay nothing, those without free supercharging are likely subsidizing the cars with free supercharging to help cover the losses and help with the capital to expand the network. Maintenance costs on the supercharger network could also be increasing as the chargers age and get more use. So even if Tesla is paying $0.12-0.20 per kWhr, the markup offsets the cost of maintenance, funds expansion and covers free supercharging.

 

[Knightshade]

Building out the SC network is a fundamental key to Tesla selling cars, AKA advertisement. The fact that they put them in malls, big stops, and off busy highways is great for their brand recognition.

Not really, since you almost never can actually see them until you're right near them (a few insanely huge ones in CA being the exception).

In fact in the regional threads there's often people asking where the heck the one on the map actually is.

For example when I drove between NC and GA a few months ago I stopped at:

A supercharger in Greenville SC that is on a back service road, way in the back of a hotel parking lot, and not visible until you're maybe 50-100 feet away in the same hotel parking lot.

A supercharger in Buford, GA that is at a mall, but totally unlabeled apart from the stalls itself, and only vaguely near the Pier 1 (and not near any other stores). You'd have no idea it was there if you didn't find it on a supercharger map.

A supercharger in Charlotte in a shopping center so badly labeled we drove around the parking lot twice to find it. Decent Chinese food in the shopping mall at least!

A supercharger in Burlington again in a shopping center area, again not visible until you get quite near it, and not near much of anything except the back end of a movie theater parking lot.




What putting them in such locations IS good for is making them exist in useful locations for actually charging though.

B
I am not advocating for them to go out of business operating the SC network at a loss, nor did I say they shouldn't charge for their operation and maintenance. They should charge the bare essentials and not charge a 100% markup in order to cover their administrative overhead.

There's no evidence they're doing such a thing though. I already listed numerous items you left the cost of out of in your calculations... (and I didn't even list the fact they're getting $0.00 in revenue for the electricity they provide to those with free supercharging on their cars- which is still like half the fleet in the US)

 

[MARKM3]

Not really, since you almost never can actually see them until you're right near them (a few insanely huge ones in CA being the exception).

In fact in the regional threads there's often people asking where the heck the one on the map actually is.

For example when I drove between NC and GA a few months ago I stopped at:

A supercharger in Greenville SC that is on a back service road, way in the back of a hotel parking lot, and not visible until you're maybe 50-100 feet away in the same hotel parking lot.

A supercharger in Buford, GA that is at a mall, but totally unlabeled apart from the stalls itself, and only vaguely near the Pier 1 (and not near any other stores). You'd have no idea it was there if you didn't find it on a supercharger map.

A supercharger in Charlotte in a shopping center so badly labeled we drove around the parking lot twice to find it. Decent Chinese food in the shopping mall at least!

A supercharger in Burlington again in a shopping center area, again not visible until you get quite near it, and not near much of anything except the back end of a movie theater parking lot.




What putting them in such locations IS good for is making them exist in useful locations for actually charging though.




There's no evidence they're doing such a thing though. I already listed numerous items you left the cost of out of in your calculations... (and I didn't even list the fact they're getting $0.00 in revenue for the electricity they provide to those with free supercharging on their cars- which is still like half the fleet in the US)

I think you are misunderstanding when Tesla says they are only charging for their costs without any markup. They are undoubtedly factoring in all the cars that have FUSC and free limited SC. We both agree on that, now how much of the cost plays into that? Who knows. What if they were charging 45 cents per kw? Hell they could go up to 50 cents per Kw and say it is covering their costs.

MY point is this, that the rates they charge now are extraordinarily high for electricity and it's absurd coming from the car maker itself who is selling 50k-250k cars. Also factor in all the free destination supercharging - most places that are just selling groceries & hotel rooms are willing to give charging away for free in hopes that you just stop by the dang thing. How does that make sense, but yet, Tesla won't even give it's 100k+ orders FUSC anymore. WTF.

Tesla would have a customer for life if they gave away charging for free. No one could compete, and it would be a huge selling point. It does seem unsustainable though. They did it for a few years with their higher end cars.