Hold on a minute. My read of this was that, while the SpC fee was indeed to be paid up front, it would be going to the GM or Mercedes or VW company, who then would be using those assets to fund their share of SpCs - I did not come to believe it would be going to TMC. Would be ecstatic to learn elsewise.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Opens Its Patents To Boost Electric Car Adoption
- Thread starter yobigd20
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Hold on a minute. My read of this was that, while the SpC fee was indeed to be paid up front, it would be going to the GM or Mercedes or VW company, who then would be using those assets to fund their share of SpCs - I did not come to believe it would be going to TMC. Would be ecstatic to learn elsewise.
SebastianR
Active Member
I think Shell (or any other gas station company) may not be the target audience here: I think for the time to come, a gas pump with good traffic will be more profitable than a supercharger, even if electricity is "free" and you charge $10 - the problem is that you still need to wait 30mins for the refueling.
I think however, that now all the restaurants should move in: "Why not come and charge for free* at our restaurant? *Free charging provided with any SuperSizeXXL Menu" - think about it: it is a reason for wealthy customers to stop at YOUR place, you need parking anyways and supercharging people are "gone after 30 minutes" i.e. this is the perfect timing for a high turn-over restaurant.
Yes Tesla can scale up Supercharger production easily because every Supercharger-capable car order Tesla receives, months before having to deliver the car, pays for that cars part of the Supercharger network. It's a self-funding capital expense. Elon has said repeatedly, and did so again just yesterday in London, that the cost of building the Supercharger network is relatively small and that is in part why the stations Tesla builds do not include a per-use payment system: it's not worth bothering with as it's much easier to factor in that cost into the price of every Supercharger-enabled car sold.
Tesla now has the inhouse know-how, and the experienced outside contractors (in North America, Europe, and starting in China) to relatively easily build new Supercharger locations.
jkliu47
Member
Actually I think his proposal is simpler than this.
There is no rule that the Superchargers HAVE to be 100 miles apart. Any other EV manufacturer (or EV centric business) can install SC's closer - and thus give access to the shorter range EV's.
And this means all the more SC's available for our Teslas. And most probably solve the problem for city folk and apt dwellers.
- - - Updated - - -
Plus - the SC's be as ubiquitous as Starbucks!
Minus - have you tried parking near a Starbucks and grabbing a quick caffeine fix?
I think a better business model would be that of installing SC's in existing gas stations with mini-marts or by fast food joints.
You'd think... have you ever tried posting that idea on mystarbucksidea.com? There are some trolls on there who vote down anything like that!
SebastianR
Active Member
Agree that this would be a good idea. However, I don't know if Starbucks wants people to stick around for 20-40 mins. I think the likes of Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden and other fast food places disguised as "restaurants" are probably an even better fit.
My biggest question is how does this proposed policy affect charging in big cities? I see the proposal making sense if third-party providers are allowed to sell supercharger charges within large population areas. Tesla still makes some free charging stations available, but it'll be more convenient for most city dwellers to recharge at a nearby third-party supercharger, and it won't cost an arm and a leg because the presence of free superchargers in the city will keep prices moderate.
I would rather pay $6 for a quick supercharger fill up than drive 15 minutes to and 15 minutes from a free location. I see third party supercharging as the long-term answer to Tesla buyers who live in large cities but lack the charging infrastructure in their home parking areas. Why would Tesla shoulder unlimited charging for life in big cities such as Beijing, London, and New York when they're only charging $2,000 for the option up front? A limited number of free stations in big cities makes sense, but a huge deployment of free-forever superchargers in big cities does not offer sustainable economics. Let Tesla and the other companies offer free supercharging alongside highways, but let the third-party providers take up the brunt of the charging within cities, as is currently being done through slower charge methods.
I would rather pay $6 for a quick supercharger fill up than drive 15 minutes to and 15 minutes from a free location. I see third party supercharging as the long-term answer to Tesla buyers who live in large cities but lack the charging infrastructure in their home parking areas. Why would Tesla shoulder unlimited charging for life in big cities such as Beijing, London, and New York when they're only charging $2,000 for the option up front? A limited number of free stations in big cities makes sense, but a huge deployment of free-forever superchargers in big cities does not offer sustainable economics. Let Tesla and the other companies offer free supercharging alongside highways, but let the third-party providers take up the brunt of the charging within cities, as is currently being done through slower charge methods.
It will take the car companies a few years to figure out how to build better evs, plus they aren't advanced enough to handle the battery format that tesla uses, requiring cooling and heating. By the time that happens, Tesla can sell them batteries from the giga factory. And Tesla must own lots of patents about cooling, heating, and care of separated battery system.
- - - Updated - - -
Just as movie theater chains all say they make most of the money off concessions, could it be that in the future gas stations will make more money off selling you a coke or something? That would be another reason to put a supercharger at stations between cities.
Already there. ...gas stations don't make much on fuel sales at all. It's the concessions. Actually the supercharger concession makes tons of sense! The roof can include solar provided of course by solarcity
The gas pumps can gradually be replaced by superchargers. Open source to boot. That's a huge opportunity.
Today's gas stations already operate that way. At least in the US, all of the newer stations are more junk food store than gasoline dispenser.
I think that for the foreseeable future Tesla will continue to expand the Supercharger network following the existing "free" model (charging cost built into the cost of the car), and if any other companies decide to participate they will have to follow that model.
Tesla will open up its Supercharger patents to boost electric car adoption
I would still argue not many people want to hang out at a gas station for 30-60 minutes rather somewhere to grab coffee or a sandwich would be much better.
I would still argue not many people want to hang out at a gas station for 30-60 minutes rather somewhere to grab coffee or a sandwich would be much better.
Last edited:
While I agree opening up the protocol benefits everyone, the caveats Elon describe means that hardly anyone is going to take them up on the offer.
1. To take advantage of 120-135k kw charging requires minimum 60 kwh packs (2C charging) which at this point does anybody have over 30 besides the Tesla (Toyota) Rav 4?
2. Manufactures would rather have a cheaper plug on the car and not be in the business of managing/maintaining a charging infrastructure.
3. If Ford charged 2k for a plug and gave Tesla half of that to pay for the infrastructure/electricity, that means Tesla is still calling all the shots and getting most of the recognition out of it.
What I would like to see is Tesla keep going with their 150 mile distance infrastructure (for free) then let other companies purchase SC ranging in 50kw to 135kw configurations to fill in the gaps (using the tesla plug). At these locations of course you will be charged a fee, but I would much rather pay 30 bucks in these cases to fill up for the 5 times a year. Additionally if 3rd parties were purchasing SC's (and in lower configurations) then there is a good chance that lightly traveled areas could get at least some DC3 charging as well.
1. To take advantage of 120-135k kw charging requires minimum 60 kwh packs (2C charging) which at this point does anybody have over 30 besides the Tesla (Toyota) Rav 4?
2. Manufactures would rather have a cheaper plug on the car and not be in the business of managing/maintaining a charging infrastructure.
3. If Ford charged 2k for a plug and gave Tesla half of that to pay for the infrastructure/electricity, that means Tesla is still calling all the shots and getting most of the recognition out of it.
What I would like to see is Tesla keep going with their 150 mile distance infrastructure (for free) then let other companies purchase SC ranging in 50kw to 135kw configurations to fill in the gaps (using the tesla plug). At these locations of course you will be charged a fee, but I would much rather pay 30 bucks in these cases to fill up for the 5 times a year. Additionally if 3rd parties were purchasing SC's (and in lower configurations) then there is a good chance that lightly traveled areas could get at least some DC3 charging as well.
Last edited:
So it seems that you think that TM will release supercharger specifications so that other manufacturers can produce and install the superchargers -this is the only scenario which would include $2,000 going to them instead of TM.
I do not see superchargers ever produced and installed by other manufacturers. TM will continue manufacture the superchargers, install them and monitor the network usage, adding bays to existing or new locations so that the network develops to match the demand. The payment model (sharing the cost as Elon put it during the shareholders meeting) will be the same as it stands currently - $2,000 per car. The release of IP will cover all patents that make a battery pack able to work in tandem with the Superchargers.
There are several reasons why this arrangement will be preferred by both TM and the manufacturers buying into the system.
Other manufacturers are not moving into the developing and manufacturing of "200 miles+" EVs because it requires very significant R&D expense and team of engineers they simply currently do not have. To top it off in their analysis this massive expenditure of capital has very high risk due to uncertainties of wide scale adoption of EV. As a result these manufacturers fall even further behind, and task of shifting to developing and manufacturing a compelling EV becomes even more daunting as time passes by. In this situation, if any of these manufacturers would be drawn in by Elon's offer of opening the charging protocol and allowing them to use TM Supercharger network, they will be happy to reduce risk by "outsourcing" and leaving the build-out and management of the supercharger network to TM.
From the TM perspective, it will be some time before other manufacturers can develop and start manufacturing the "200+" EVs. At that time the US supercharging network built by Tesla will be quite mature and undoubtedly cover all US, with probably more than 300-500 locations. Allowing other manufacturers access to these 300-500 TM Superchargers while Tesla car owners will in return gain access to the few that these manufacturers would build just does not represent a fair deal and will require some kind of monetary compensation to TM.
So I think that TM will open source all IP that is required for design of the supercharger compatible battery packs by other manufacturers and then allow them to buy into the already existing Supercharger network at $2,000 per car.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you said except the guote about Tesla being unable to supply Mercedes and Toyota with batteries. Mercedes now has a joint venure making their own batteries for the Smart EV and a B class vehicle in Europe. Within a year of launching the RAV4EV as a compliance vehicle Toyota declared their commitment to fool cells. The RAV4EV deal was always a 2600 car compliance vehicle for California only. Some if us that bought the RAV4EV hoped that it would become more popular, but that didn't happen.
Or as started by Gillette, 100 years ago by giving away the handle and selling them blades for life.
But wait, are we going to see cheap EV's and pay as you go proprietary charging stations? I think the cat is out of that bag, so that is not likely.
Yes, I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of what I think he said. I shouldn't have given the impression that I thought the idea was for other manufacturers to be the actual diggers and builders of more SpCs.
I do, however, fervently hope that the current "end 2014/2015" SpC map is a very small fraction of what the North American network will look like....very quickly. Far too many great, great roads and routes are utterly inaccessible by that grid.
Similar threads
