Tesla Supercharger network

[SW2Fiddler]

I agree. But please edit your post so it doesn't look like I'm the one Nolanding. [emoji1]

You refer to a Tapatalk artifact that has started happening in the last month or two. (In Web View you were still lookin' good) Every quote gets the attribution of the first quote, no matter the different names attributed.
The false attribution therefore wasn't something I could "edit" out, so I've removed your handle attribution from the first quote ...and will file a Bug Report with Tapatalk. [emoji220]

I also want to be fair to Mr. Noland, and mention that later in the same article he models how etiquette can prevent the cloggy buildup from unrestrained nolanding (emphasis mine):

Transients take priority

Another factor to consider in local Supercharging: I may be occupying a charger badly needed by a Model S in transit.

Obviously, if there are only one or two spaces available, I’ll stay with the car and quickly give up my space to any transient Model S that appears.

But with the six spaces at the Newburgh Supercharger, I doubt I’ll ever run into that situation.

"Obviously!" I wish it were so, David.
This does not mean that I believe nolanding is excusable to save money off one's electric bill. I would excuse for time needs, someone needs a quicker turnaround than when they charge at home. Time-need will not cause a longer-than necessary monopolization of a stall, by definition! They won't be parking it and going to a movie for instance... or waiting thru the taper to squeeze out 99.999% charge.

 

[purplewalt]

Many people won't buy a car that won't work for their travel patterns. Other people look at the maps and future expected dates of available locations and say, "by next summer, I should be able to use my Model S to go on my vacation to _____________, so I can just buy it now."

It is that "expected date" thing that is HUGE part of the issue.
Look at the "current" map.
Look at the end of 2015 map.

Seriously look at the Southeast, the entire Southeast and South Texas.
DON'T look at the projected END of 2016 Map.
Does anyone seriously think that the rest of the 98% coverage will occur by then?

smh

If TM got close to even 50% of the End of 2015 "goal" number of Superchargers installed and operating before the end of 2015 or April 1, 2016: that would be better.
Not close to what they are projecting but better...
And at the current snail's pace, I don't even see how that can happen with less that 3 month to go in 2015..

Making Plans are great.
Executing plans in a timely manner so that people's expectations are fulfilled is all I am asking for.
I am not looking for an argument nor excuses, just looking for TM to begin installing a couple dozen more operational Superchargers that would reflect something similar to what the Map(s) depicts.
Don't change the Maps to reflect what didn't get done, just "Get it Done".

UNDER promise and OVER deliver makes for happy Owners/Clients.

 

[Bet TSLA]

It is that "expected date" thing that is HUGE part of the issue.

I agree. Tesla would be much better off getting rid of these "future" maps entirely. They are making guesses and people are optimistically believing they reflect reality, then getting upset when it doesn't happen as fast as they guessed it would. The best way to eliminate unrealistic expectations is to never say anything. That's certainly where Apple ended up, and it has worked quite well for them.

 

[Cottonwood]

UNDER promise and OVER deliver makes for happy Owners/Clients.

I could not agree more, but this does not seem to be in the Tesla or general, high-tech, corporate culture...

Tesla has done a pretty good job of staying ahead of California capacity issues, filling in the gaps of already started routes, but has failed at getting going on some major routes on the 2015 map.

As I stated earlier, I am fully supportive of Tesla staying ahead of the capacity issues in California and near NYC; also, I think the "locals charging at Superchargers" is mostly a red herring. On my two trips to California in my Model S, I have never had a queue, and when I was at chargers where I was the last to arrive, there were few if any locals using the Supercharger. Let's face it, while California has 34 Supercharger sites out of 222 nationwide, that is only about 15% of the total with only a fraction of those going to "capacity." California has a lot of Teslas, let them have a lot of Superchargers...

There are now two major E-W routes complete (I-90 and I-70 with I-15, I-80, and I-84 feeding I-70), and three major N-S routes complete or mostly complete (I-5, I-75, and I-95 with the I-85 feeder almost done). That is a major accomplishment!

The big "Over-promise and Under-deliver" problems are in the SE US. I'd be unhappy if I lived in that region, also. The Tesla 2015 map promises I-20, I-65, and I-81 in 2015, with little evidence of many starts on those routes. Hopefully, Tesla will get busy soon (or is already busy) on those routes and other coverage project!

 

[TexasEV]

The big "Over-promise and Under-deliver" problems are in the SE US. I'd be unhappy if I lived in that region, also. The Tesla 2015 map promises I-20, I-65, and I-81 in 2015, with little evidence of many starts on those routes. Hopefully, Tesla will get busy soon (or is already busy) on those routes and other coverage project!

And Slidell, LA, and adjacent to the southeast in Texas where there is nothing happening yet on the 2015 map routes from Austin and Houston to south Texas, and putting a surcharger at the north Houston service center is not an adequate substitute for something on I-10 in the long gap between Columbus, TX and Lake Charles, LA.

Meanwhle people in California complain that they can't take their favorite scenic route from A to B (but they can get there), or that they have to drive 5 miles out of the way. But we can't get from C to D or E or F at all.

 

[Cottonwood]

The big "Over-promise and Under-deliver" problems are in the SE US. I'd be unhappy if I lived in that region, also. The Tesla 2015 map promises I-20, I-65, and I-81 in 2015, with little evidence of many starts on those routes. Hopefully, Tesla will get busy soon (or is already busy) on those routes and other coverage project!

And Slidell, LA, and adjacent to the southeast in Texas where there is nothing happening yet on the 2015 map routes from Austin and Houston to south Texas, and putting a surcharger at the north Houston service center is not an adequate substitute for something on I-10 in the long gap between Columbus, TX and Lake Charles, LA.

Meanwhle people in California complain that they can't take their favorite scenic route from A to B (but they can get there), or that they have to drive 5 miles out of the way. But we can't get from C to D or E or F at all.

I was listing the "Big" problems.

I could not agree with you more about I-10 east of Houston and Slidell, LA. They are both very important to meet my 133 mile maximum distance between Superchargers rule. My 133 mile rule allows 85/90's quick charging in most weather condition and driving speed, and the possibility of comfortable travel for 60's.

Other "Gaps" like those that are not on the radar, but are very important, are Jacksonville, FL (or better yet, Brunswick, GA); Mt Vernon, IL/Paducah, KY; Pueblo, CO; Erie, PA; Québec City/Rivière du Loup, QC; and into Maine.

California has about 15% of the currently open Superchargers and 17% of the U.S. openings this year. With their Tesla population, that's fine with me. The rest of us are getting 83% this year. We all just need more Superchargers and all boats will rise together.

 

[David99]

That is 21 stations Opened or Upgraded in 15 months.
And four more, five (if your count Gardnerville, NV) more are currently under construction.
Five more in permitting.
ALL in California (or right on the border).
And respectfully, yes, that is an over-supply in California.

Again, you are looking at the map and conclude it's too many. It's misleading because the map does not show Model S traffic. You don't have the total Tesla driven miles in California to put the numbers in a meaningful context. You just look at one number and assume over-supply.

Here is another proof about how much more traffic California has.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-congested-roads-america-2011-10?op=1

Out of the top 10 busiest freeways, 7 are in Los Angeles, and 9 in California. Having 3 SC in LA is not over-supply! Everyone really needs to stop looking at a map when counting Superchargers. Physical space (a map) tells you zero about traffic density.

Look at total miles driven per state.
California has 12 times more traffic than Utah, yet it has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 120 Superchargers?
California has 5.5 times more traffic than Arizona. Arizona has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 55 Superchargers?
California has 13.5 times as much traffic as Nevada. Nevada has 7 Superchargers. Does California have 94 Superchargers?
California has 1.7 times the traffic than Florida. Florida has 23 Superchargers. Does California have 39 Superchargers?

I don't have the patience to do this for all states, but I think the trend is clear. Saying California has 'oversupply' is just not correct. Plain and simple.

 

[purplewalt]

I could not agree more, but this does not seem to be in the Tesla or general, high-tech, corporate culture...

Then the time to fix it is right now.
If it is a mindset that someone can promise customers and they won't remember, shame on them.
Sorry, TM has had Supercharger maps up for well over two years, and just giving it lip service is unacceptable.

They use the Maps as part of their marketing strategy/campaign, and people want to see actual results that benefit them at a local and regional level, not over 1,400 miles away.

UNDER promise and OVER deliver.

Their Supercharge implementation and production is woefully short of their stated goals.
Somebody needs to get on the ball and produce.

Nobody else puts the Maps up, or made Tesla agree to provide the Superchargers.
Tesla Motors is 100% responsible for the Maps, and they should start delivering on that promise.

Really tired of to trying to look at it any other way than TM promised a relatively full map in the SouthEast, and they just are not delivering.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I never took the maps to mean a promise, but rather a projection that they are aiming for but might not happen. Maybe I have been conditioned by other similar maps of projected infrastructure (including public charging stations and hydrogen stations).

 

[purplewalt]

Again, you are looking at the map and conclude it's too many. It's misleading because the map does not show Model S traffic. You don't have the total Tesla driven miles in California to put the numbers in a meaningful context. You just look at one number and assume over-supply.

Here is another proof about how much more traffic California has.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-congested-roads-america-2011-10?op=1

Out of the top 10 busiest freeways, 7 are in Los Angeles, and 9 in California. Having 3 SC in LA is not over-supply! Everyone really needs to stop looking at a map when counting Superchargers. Physical space (a map) tells you zero about traffic density.

Look at total miles driven per state.
California has 12 times more traffic than Utah, yet it has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 120 Superchargers?
California has 5.5 times more traffic than Arizona. Arizona has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 55 Superchargers?
California has 13.5 times as much traffic as Nevada. Nevada has 7 Superchargers. Does California have 94 Superchargers?
California has 1.7 times the traffic than Florida. Florida has 23 Superchargers. Does California have 39 Superchargers?

I don't have the patience to do this for all states, but I think the trend is clear. Saying California has 'oversupply' is just not correct. Plain and simple.

Respectfully, then if you want to look at the traffic aspect, add the Texas factor in too.
I can cherry-pick numbers and data all day long, but I am not going there.
Arkansas, Mississippi have ZERO Superchargers.
Do the math with that if you choose to find some patience.


Looking at the vast UN-SERVED areas and the vast quantity of Superchargers California currently has, and will shortly have another 10, California is over-supplied.
That is the very simple fact.
Put the next 10 Superchargers in the SouthEast, and NOT in California, then California is not over-supplied.
Please look at this globally, or at least from the Rest of the U.S. point of view, not based on LA or even LA basin or Southern California.

Many of the rest of us have OUT-of-the way Options, NO Options or very limited Options regarding Superchargers and long distance travel.
That is what they are intended to be used for.

 

[efusco]

Again, you are looking at the map and conclude it's too many. It's misleading because the map does not show Model S traffic. You don't have the total Tesla driven miles in California to put the numbers in a meaningful context. You just look at one number and assume over-supply.

Here is another proof about how much more traffic California has.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-congested-roads-america-2011-10?op=1

Out of the top 10 busiest freeways, 7 are in Los Angeles, and 9 in California. Having 3 SC in LA is not over-supply! Everyone really needs to stop looking at a map when counting Superchargers. Physical space (a map) tells you zero about traffic density.

Look at total miles driven per state.
California has 12 times more traffic than Utah, yet it has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 120 Superchargers?
California has 5.5 times more traffic than Arizona. Arizona has 10 Superchargers. Does California have 55 Superchargers?
California has 13.5 times as much traffic as Nevada. Nevada has 7 Superchargers. Does California have 94 Superchargers?
California has 1.7 times the traffic than Florida. Florida has 23 Superchargers. Does California have 39 Superchargers?

I don't have the patience to do this for all states, but I think the trend is clear. Saying California has 'oversupply' is just not correct. Plain and simple.

I guess the question is whether it's better to have some areas unserved completely while others, with high traffic, are fully served, or if it's better to underserve some areas and have some service to every area. When you're sitting where I am the answer is clearly ...expand everywhere and let the busy areas be underserved for now. But that's not the direction Tesla has chosen to go with.

 

[jerry33]

I guess the question is whether it's better to have some areas unserved completely while others, with high traffic, are fully served, or if it's better to underserve some areas and have some service to every area. When you're sitting where I am the answer is clearly ...expand everywhere and let the busy areas be underserved for now. But that's not the direction Tesla has chosen to go with.

The problem is that you have to work on both at the same time, so neither group is going to be happy in the short term.

 

[bollar]

I happened to see this in Orange County today. In the short period I was here, I saw two local chargers top off.

 

[physicsfita]

An interesting thing I noticed from the NY Times article linked upthread was that CA accounts for 50% of EV purchases in the US. Considering that CA only accounts for 12% of the population of the US, I guess it makes more sense why the auto manufacturers concentrate their EV efforts on CA -- that's a very powerful market niche. If Tesla's market share is comparable, it would make sense why it seems like they aren't trying that hard to deal with the legal hurdles of selling in a state like MI, and that they keep delaying their supercharger installation schedule for the state.

MI's 3rd supercharger is currently under construction -- allegedly, there were to be more than that already last year. It also makes sense why they dropped the Jackson/Marshall supercharger from their plans altogether and seem to be in no hurry to install one in Lansing, despite it being on their maps for a very long time. Those locations would enable certain east/west round trips, such as Detroit area to Kalamazoo and back, which would be of greater interest to prospective owners in MI. If MI's interest in EV's is weak, it makes sense to put it on the back burner.

Anyway, 2+ years of watching the buildout in the Midwest has shown that when it is time to replace my Prius, I should only pay attention to the superchargers actually installed, and not what's on Tesla's map -- if the chargers are there (and I can get the car serviced in MI), I'll get a Model 3. Otherwise, the new Volt is looking pretty good, although it looks like Chevy is planning to sell the entire first year's production to mostly CA and a few other states -- again, showing how much more interest there seems to be for such vehicles in CA than MI.

 

[jerry33]

An interesting thing I noticed from the NY Times article linked upthread was that CA accounts for 50% of EV purchases in the US. Considering that CA only accounts for 12% of the population of the US, I guess it makes more sense why the auto manufacturers concentrate their EV efforts on CA -- that's a very powerful market niche. If Tesla's market share is comparable, it would make sense why it seems like they aren't trying that hard to deal with the legal hurdles of selling in a state like MI, and that they keep delaying their supercharger installation schedule for the state.

It's also where all the compliance cars are. Most of the auto manufacturers are just doing it because it's mandated.

 

[TexasEV]

I happened to see this in Orange County today. In the short period I was here, I saw two local chargers top off.

Yeah, it would be hard to believe all of them are on a trip from one city to another beyond the range of the car, and none are from Orange County who are there to shop at the pet store or whatever else is in that shopping center.

 

[bollar]

Yeah, it would be hard to believe all of them are on a trip from one city to another beyond the range of the car, and none are from Orange County who are there to shop at the pet store or whatever else is in that shopping center.

This is the new Fountain Valley Supercharger and it already has a reputation as a locals hangout. I asked two people and they were local, two more were returning from the Costco in this shopping center and a fifth person was dropped off in an ICE.

Not that it means anything, but only a couple of cars had the fans running on high.

Supercharger - Fountain Valley (went LIVE 08-28-2015)

 

[AudubonB]

Although there doubtless is both positive self-reinforcement (more Tesla sell lin California because the infrastructure is better), and negative (fewer Tesla sell in northern Plains states because the paucity of SpCs inhibit their utility), overall I've decided to nod a "Well done" to the Golden State. And....much worse...according to the infographic presented a page or two ago, there was only ONE Tesla registered in Alaska in 2014. Ugh, if true. The 43 total registered beats Wyoming, but that's no consolation.

There are a LOT of well-heeled Alaskans who would purchase a Model S - and even more so a Model X - were the infrastructure extant. A half dozen SpCs in an area over twice the size of Texas and over four times the size of California would be a terrific beginning and, as I have demonstrated earlier, nine of them would cover well over 99 percent of passenger traffic patterns in the state. I am pretty sure that, barring RI, DE and other outliers, that beats all other states, hands down.

 

[Chuq]

Complaints about density of Superchargers are all relative.

I live in Australia - there isn't a single SC in my state Tasmania - I'm a 300km drive and a 10 hour ferry ride away from the nearest one (Melbourne). Once here there is a chain of 7 superchargers that will get me to Sydney. That's the entirety of the network in the country, physically the size of the USA. For reference, Tasmania has a population of 500,000, although the ferry mentioned above provides access direct to a city of population 4 million. Driving from one corner to the other is 288 miles/463 km through rather mountainous terrain. A single supercharger site would service about 80% of the population. Public EV charge points are non-existent.

Of course this isn't a complaint about the facilities (or lack thereof) - we are a relatively remote and small part of the world, and services will come with time. In a way I'm better off than people in many first-world countries without a single supercharger (New Zealand, South Korea, etc). Look at what they've done in the USA and Europe in less than three years. Having to take a slightly different route through Pennsylvania or Alabama isn't an issue in comparison - you can still get to your destination using free superchargers.

 

[smartypnz]

Complaints about density of Superchargers are all relative.

A single supercharger site would service about 80% of the population.

Love it. Although, I think 6 perfectly placed SC's in Tasmania would serve for quite a few years.