ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Plenty of old Teslas do that already. Should we ban them too?
This problem doesn’t really exist. Even the slowest DCFC capable EVs these days can handle 100kw or more.
-
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
This problem doesn’t really exist. Even the slowest DCFC capable EVs these days can handle 100kw or more.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
There is a constant battle between charging by kwh and per minute. We drivers love to pay per kwh because that's what we get out of the deal. Once on the road it doesn't matter what sort of charger the kwh came from.
The charging operator cares a little bit about kwh but the bigger cost for them is the station itself, so they care a lot more about the time you spend there.
Drivers care a little bit about the time *other* people spend at the charger. When I am waiting, I don't want you charging at 20kw to get from 95% to 100%.
So the reality is the price should probably be a mix of time and kwh -- which is true at some chargers. But we drivers hate that. One reason we have good reason to hate it is that sometimes the charging rate is slow and it's the fault of the charger -- we are being cheated. Other times it is our car which is slow -- the station is being cheated.
The "right" formula would be complex, but nobody wants that. People want prices they understand.
No easy win.
Assuming Tesla isn't stupid or desperate, it will open up _selected_ Superchargers, notably the ones that it knows aren't busy.
Raising utilization rates will improve the economics of the chargers, as they'll have the same demand charges, but will sell more electricity.
If there's any reasonable profit to be made in charging, then opening up the network should mean more chargers.
Raising utilization rates will improve the economics of the chargers, as they'll have the same demand charges, but will sell more electricity.
If there's any reasonable profit to be made in charging, then opening up the network should mean more chargers.
Right. You’d have bloody war if you favored Tesla’s. You either open it fairly or not at all.
Plenty of old Teslas do that already. Should we ban them too?
This problem doesn’t really exist. Even the slowest DCFC capable EVs these days can handle 100kw or more.
Hello from Kona world.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
Tesla says it makes no profit in charging. It tries to run them break even but they are mostly there to sell Teslas. They would want to charge non-Teslas enough to make a profit perhaps. But no big charging network is run to make a profit, remember. That's very hard, and why so much is screwed up.
However, it is true that if you get more utilization it does pay for the capital costs, which means you can run it break even by charging a bit less -- or maybe, at high prices, make a profit. But again, Tesla does not want to make a profit off Tesla drivers. It wants it to continue to be true that only a Tesla is good at road trips.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in the UK, and other European places as they open up the network there. It's easier there to open the network as the chargers have CCS plugs, and the newer Tesla vehicles do as well.
In the states its more complicated because people need an adapter.
I'm not absolutely sure Tesla will go through with opening their Network in the US. It's largely going to depend on whether Tesla gets federal money to build out the charging network. If they pursue that then they will.
On the plus side they'll get government money, and they'll have additional reoccurring revenue.
On the negative side it does make the competition more competitive, and Tesla can't integrate things like pre-conditioning for supercharging into those vehicles so they'll take longer.
As a consumer I believe we need to have Electrify America and Tesla compete against each other to keep them honest regarding pricing.
In the states its more complicated because people need an adapter.
I'm not absolutely sure Tesla will go through with opening their Network in the US. It's largely going to depend on whether Tesla gets federal money to build out the charging network. If they pursue that then they will.
On the plus side they'll get government money, and they'll have additional reoccurring revenue.
On the negative side it does make the competition more competitive, and Tesla can't integrate things like pre-conditioning for supercharging into those vehicles so they'll take longer.
As a consumer I believe we need to have Electrify America and Tesla compete against each other to keep them honest regarding pricing.
They've been slowing walking away from that.
There is no way they're not going to leverage the supercharger network long term as a revenue source.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
Do you have a quote from them about them backing that away, and that they want to turn the chargers into a profit center? I am not saying it's impossible, but it would be a bit strange for them. They realized that it wasn't smart to run charging as a business. In fact, originally as most people here know, supercharging was free for the lifetime of your car. There were also few superchargers in cities as they were not meant for charging in the city, only between cities.
Charging as a profit center is really hard. Selling cars as a profit center is what they know how to do. Electricity is not at all like gasoline. It's really barely a commodity. The wholesale electricity at the generator is around 2 cents/kwh (now down below that for solar.) The actual energy is barely in the equation -- transmission, time of day high demand surcharges, and charging equipment are where the costs are.
The average American gets electricity at home for about 11 cents/kwh. (Wish I got that here.) Some get it for less on ToU plans. Many charge cars at work for "free." How do you run a business in that world trying to make a profit selling it for 24 cents to 55 cents/kwh? Only with customers who have no other choice. Not a great place to do a business. As charging infrastructure expands to include most homes and offices, nobody wants your superchargers except on road trips. There they use them because they have no other choice. Tesla built them because they didn't exist, and they wanted to tell you "You can take road trips in this car just fine" because everybody believed that was out of the question with an EV.
Is Tesla really going to "open up the SC network" in the US and allow other cars to plug in and use their supercharger dispensers (which could cause electrical, physical, and billing issues to be resolved with the various different brands of cars that may not work or even reach the short cords), or will they just simply tack on some CCS/Chademo charging stations that non-Tesla cars are already capable of using at the newly installed sites? By just simply adding these new stations, they can solve the charging problem for other cars so much more elegantly without trying to reverse engineer a solution into their existing architecture.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
There is only "talk" about anything in the US. Tesla's actual opening of SuperChargers for public use is currently a reality in a couple of European locations.
As best I can tell, their decisions revolve around accepting major government money that's being put on the table for any private company to offer public charging - they take that, and basically reinvest the added cash to make more stations, thus keeping (we hope) their level of access for the primary Tesla customer's use case.
They'll make a move in the US only if there's millions on the table from the government or carmakers to do it.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
I think we should ban anyone not named “Gus”, but that’s just me.Plenty of old Teslas do that already. Should we ban them too?
This problem doesn’t really exist. Even the slowest DCFC capable EVs these days can handle 100kw or more.
The max kW a vehicle will accept is not necessarily indicative of total charge time. All cars taper on a curve, but some have better thermal management than others.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
Partial access to the SC network would be confusing. They could use variable pricing, however, to influence behavior.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
I can buy an egg for 25¢, but breakfast at IHOP is $5. We gladly pay it for the convenience.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
Opening the SC network will definitely sell more Teslas, as the new visitors are greeted by the cultists and their beaming, endless smiles
I won't. As long as they are paying their fair share of the costs to maintain and grow the network and it charges reasonably fast (~120KW or more to at least 50% SoC), I'll cheer wildly. I may even buy the guy/gal a drink!
I was totally delighted when Ford had the guts to announce their EVs would be their mainstream brand leaders (Mustang and F-150), not some disfigured, stunted mutant runt like BMW's i3.
More cars supporting the Supercharger Network means more Superchargers in more places. We all win!
On one level, I agree with this, however, if those 40KW cars support the buildout of 4X more stations, it becomes a net win. With enough charging stations to support slow charging cars, it won't matter.
Remember that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum-game.
We just have to keep the entitled socialists at bay and do what's smart.
Chevy Bolt is the third highest selling EV behind Tesla and Nissan Leaf. And they're limited to 55kW max.
Maybe, but that's how Tesla started out in Europe. They only opened some SCs to other brands.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Indeed, thanks for the correction. But they’re also essentially dead.
And like I said, lots of 85kwh model S charge at about 50kw these days too.
Similar threads
- Poll
