Tesla Supercharger network

[GRA]

Well, there's Catoosa, OK which begins dedicated I-44 activity, and it looks like Tesla might be trying to fill in Eastern I-40 as it does I-81.

I recommend that people take a look at Supercharge.info* and uncheck Permit and Construction. With the opening of those gap Superchargers, the Open-only map looks much better than it did. Those others you list will help even more.

By my very simplified reckoning, defining "covered" as
- max gaps of 100-miles in the cold North
- max gaps of 125 miles in the South or milder NW
- (where those classification are how I decide it, damn it)
and including the Permit+ status Superchargers on Supercharge.info* as already done, Tesla needs no more than 215 more sites on Interstates fully to cover the lower 48 non-spur Interstates. The number could be lower if they can site some Superchargers at Interstate intersections. Needs** more analysis to get a better idea.

* The Awesome Supercharge.info to give it its full title.
** Needs as in "doesn't need, but I want to do it/know it anyway".

I once counted the number of intersections between two or more primary interstates, and I forget the number but it was in the neighborhood of 160-180. Allowing for gap fillers, especially west of the Mississippi, and doing an analysis based on the area of the contiguous 48 and the desired radial spacing between SCs (I used both circles and squares, and assumed 50 mile radii from the center point), I came up with something like only 250 SCs needed to cover the whole primary interstate system in the lower 48, given ideal spacing. In reality, Tesla does everything they can to avoid putting SCs at major junctions, which also usually have major cities wrapped around them, so the total number of SCs needed increases by 3 or 4 times as they have to have one on almost every leg leading out of the junction, instead of just one at it. That's an inefficiency caused by the lack of point of sale payment at SCs, and the consequent need to limit the usage by locating them away from population centers.

 

[TexasEV]

Till you arrive at the parking lot and they are all occupied. The chargers on the poster looked L2ish - non brand name.

Yeah, charging stations can be occupied. That doesn't mean the cars occupying them are less entitled to be there than you.

 

[TXjak]

... I-10 still has two gaps that need filling, Slidell, LA and something between Houston, TX and Lake Charles, LA. ...

I think Baytown would be best for eastbound I-10.

If you look at the 2016 map, I-10 has a glaring omission, IMHO, between El Paso and Fort Stockton which are 240 miles apart.

See my analysis of the Texas 2016 situation here and here.

John

 

[scottf200]

<snip> In reality, Tesla does everything they can to avoid putting SCs at major junctions, which also usually have major cities wrapped around them, so the total number of SCs needed increases by 3 or 4 times as they have to have one on almost every leg leading out of the junction, instead of just one at it. That's an inefficiency caused by the lack of point of sale payment at SCs, and the consequent need to limit the usage by locating them away from population centers.

Underlined comment could be related to locals taking up stalls for "free" local charging vs for traveling.

 

[smartypnz]

Yeah, charging stations can be occupied. That doesn't mean the cars occupying them are less entitled to be there than you.

No argument..... but long before the three week trip is over it is no longer charging and becomes just a parking space when a charging space is being sought (or expected).

 

[bollar]

I think Baytown would be best for eastbound I-10.

If you look at the 2016 map, I-10 has a glaring omission, IMHO, between El Paso and Fort Stockton which are 240 miles apart.

See my analysis of the Texas 2016 situation here and here.

John

Presumably this suggests the I-10 west of San Antonio is scheduled for late 2016 and into 2017. I agree that I-10 isn't really feasible without Van Horn.

 

[Andyw2100]

Till you arrive at the parking lot and they are all occupied. The chargers on the poster looked L2ish - non brand name.

Yeah, charging stations can be occupied. That doesn't mean the cars occupying them are less entitled to be there than you.

No argument..... but long before the three week trip is over it is no longer charging and becomes just a parking space when a charging space is being sought (or expected).

I have no skin in this game, as I would take another vehicle to the airport, and I'm not sure any airports around here even offer charging.

But I think with respect to charging and parking at airports, Superchargers and short-term parking excepted, you'd probably have to think of all parking / charging as long-term parking, with charging just thrown in as an add-on, as opposed to thinking of it in the usual way, which is that when you're done charging you are preventing someone else from charging. It's an airport. It's understood people are going to be leaving their cars for a long time.

I said short-term and Superchargers excepted because someone could park without charging and expect to be able to charge at a charger in short-term or at a Supercharger upon their return. But I think chargers in long-term parking would have to be considered fair game.

Just my opinion.

 

[jerry33]

But I think with respect to charging and parking at airports, Superchargers and short-term parking excepted, you'd probably have to think of all parking / charging as long-term parking, with charging just thrown in as an add-on, as opposed to thinking of it in the usual way, which is that when you're done charging you are preventing someone else from charging. It's an airport. It's understood people are going to be leaving their cars for a long time.

For airport parking, mostly the requirement is for 120V for long term parking. Only a few higher level chargers are needed for those cars that can't make a round trip to the airport.

 

[smartypnz]

I agree - a 110v outlet at every parking spot at an airport would be an ideal solution. As far as higher charging (Supercharger, L2, etc) - maybe far enough away from the airport to do a quick charge upon return from a trip. Example: San Mateo, CA SC.

But, realistically, if you're taking your vehicle to an airport, most often you live within range not requiring a SC. Exceptions, of course, but point is, your normal charging circumstance is within reach.

If you're just trying to save a few bucks - SF airport's lots for 3 weeks will exclude that - nearby alternate long range parking would be much cheaper.

 

[Doug Martoccia]

No. This has been explained many times. Tesla did not sell supercharger access for $2000. When supercharging option was announced for 60s it was described as the cost of the DC charging hardware and software IN THE CAR. The supercharger operation is marketing expense.

Correct. My invoice described the $2000 supercharger option as "Supercharger Hardware."

 

[David99]

Correct. My invoice described the $2000 supercharger option as "Supercharger Hardware."

But then Tesla decided to put the hardware into every Model S regardless how it was ordered so it could be enabled just via software later. Same with the S40 that was really a 60 with a software limitation.

 

[Drucifer]

But then Tesla decided to put the hardware into every Model S regardless how it was ordered so it could be enabled just via software later. Same with the S40 that was really a 60 with a software limitation.

Exactly, but happy to be corrected. I fully understood my 2nd charger to be about "hardware", but really never understood that "Supercharger Enabled" was about hardware considering the ones that were not supercharger enabled could be so with a payment and a software change without any surgery at a service center.

 

[David99]

Exactly, but happy to be corrected. I fully understood my 2nd charger to be about "hardware", but really never understood that "Supercharger Enabled" was about hardware considering the ones that were not supercharger enabled could be so with a payment and a software change without any surgery at a service center.

I think before they started making the Model S they actually considered not adding the extra hardware for Superchargers.There are a few switches that disconnect the normal (AC) chargers and connect the port directly to the battery pack. They also had to use much bigger cables to support the 120 kW from a Supercharger. I remember Elon mentioned it in an interview that they decided to go ahead and equip all cars with the hardware hoping the few people that didn't order it will reconsider and pay the upgrade later.

 

[jerry33]

Exactly, but happy to be corrected. I fully understood my 2nd charger to be about "hardware", but really never understood that "Supercharger Enabled" was about hardware considering the ones that were not supercharger enabled could be so with a payment and a software change without any surgery at a service center.

There were a very few early 60s (and I think all 40s) that were made without the hardware.

 

[dhanson865]

There were a very few early 60s (and I think all 40s) that were made without the hardware.

I don't think so.

There is a thread where all the 40 owners got emails trying to upsell them to 60 with supercharging but I haven't found it in my google searches yet. Here is the best relevant quote I could find in a short time.

I have a S40. They are the same as a the S60, except charging is limited to a max charge of 68%, which is supposed to work out to 42 kWh (making up for the fact that the car is actually heavier then the S40 was spec'd to be, so it wouldn't have been able to achieve the spec'd range for the 40 with the extra battery).

ALL Model S cars have the hardware required for supercharging, the "firmware" upgrade to get the other 32% of the S60 is $10K USD, +$2K if you want Supercharging. In fact the S40, S60, S85 are all exactly the same, except for the pack and the firmware for the power draw from it.

If there is a S60 without supercharging hardware it'd have to be some kind of rare beast that wasn't part of the normal production run. Maybe a few got sold that way when they were low on parts at the end of a quarter in the first year? I don't know of any though. If there are more than a couple it'd surprise me.

 

[TexasEV]

I don't think so.

There is a thread where all the 40 owners got emails trying to upsell them to 60 with supercharging but I haven't found it in my google searches yet. Here is the best relevant quote I could find in a short time.




If there is a S60 without supercharging hardware it'd have to be some kind of rare beast that wasn't part of the normal production run. Maybe a few got sold that way when they were low on parts at the end of a quarter in the first year? I don't know of any though. If there are more than a couple it'd surprise me.

I think some 60s may have been delivered before it announced that all cars were built with the hardware, but the announcement I remember referred to all 60s. They said it was to maintain resale value, as the second owner may want to activate it, but I assume it was just to simplify the manufacturing and it would be almost certain that someone would pay for it eventually whether the first owner or not.

 

[Benz]

Update including October 26th, 2015:

North America
2012: 0 + 0 + 2 + 7 = 9
2013: 0 + 2 + 11 + 28 = 41
2014: 32 + 16 + 19 + 35 = 102
2015: 42 + 19 + 22 + 9 = 92
Total: 9 + 41 + 102 + 92 = 244

Europe
2013: 0 + 0 + 6 + 8 = 14
2014: 0 + 10 + 44 + 54 = 108
2015: 19 + 19 + 32 + 6 = 76
Total: 14 + 108 + 76 = 198

Asia Pacific (Currently: China, Japan, Australia)
2014: 0 + 3 + 16 + 39 = 58
2015: 15 + 5 + 15 + 7 = 42
Total: 58 + 42 = 100

Global total: 244 + 198 + 100 = 542

2012 Global total: 9 + 0 + 0 = 9
2013 Global total: 41 + 14 + 0 = 55
2014 Global total: 102 + 108 + 58 = 268
2015 Global total so far: 92 + 76 + 42 = 210

Q1 2013 total: 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Q2 2013 total: 2 + 0 + 0 = 2
Q3 2013 total: 11 + 6 + 0 = 17
Q4 2013 total: 28 + 8 + 0 = 36

Q1 2014 total: 32 + 0 + 0 = 32
Q2 2014 total: 16 + 10 + 3 = 29
Q3 2014 total: 19 + 44 + 16 = 79
Q4 2014 total: 35 + 54 + 39 = 128

H1 2014: 32 + 29 = 61
H2 2014: 79 + 128 = 207

Q1 2015 total: 42 + 19 + 15 = 76
Q2 2015 total: 19 + 19 + 5 = 43
Q3 2015 total: 22 + 32 + 15 = 69 (in 92 days)
Q4 2015 (so far): 9 + 6 + 7 = 22 (in 26 days)

H1 2015: 76 + 43 = 119 (in 181 days)
H2 2015 (so far): 31 + 38 + 22 = 91 (in 118 days)

"210 new live Supercharger stations in 299 days (in 2015). The average is more than 0.7023 per day (in 2015)". That looks like the going average these days. The average in 2014 was 0.7342 (= 268/365). And that still is extraordinary progress, although the average in 2015 (so far) is lower than the average in 2014.

Update including November 7th, 2015:

North America
2012: 0 + 0 + 2 + 7 = 9
2013: 0 + 2 + 11 + 28 = 41
2014: 32 + 16 + 19 + 35 = 102
2015: 42 + 19 + 22 + 16 = 99
Total: 9 + 41 + 102 + 99 = 251

Europe
2013: 0 + 0 + 6 + 8 = 14
2014: 0 + 10 + 44 + 54 = 108
2015: 19 + 19 + 32 + 6 = 76
Total: 14 + 108 + 76 = 198

Asia Pacific (Currently: China, Japan, Australia)
2014: 0 + 3 + 16 + 39 = 58
2015: 15 + 5 + 15 + 11 = 46
Total: 58 + 46 = 104

Global total: 251 + 198 + 104 = 553

2012 Global total: 9 + 0 + 0 = 9
2013 Global total: 41 + 14 + 0 = 55
2014 Global total: 102 + 108 + 58 = 268
2015 Global total so far: 99 + 76 + 46 = 221

Q1 2013 total: 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Q2 2013 total: 2 + 0 + 0 = 2
Q3 2013 total: 11 + 6 + 0 = 17
Q4 2013 total: 28 + 8 + 0 = 36

Q1 2014 total: 32 + 0 + 0 = 32
Q2 2014 total: 16 + 10 + 3 = 29
Q3 2014 total: 19 + 44 + 16 = 79
Q4 2014 total: 35 + 54 + 39 = 128

H1 2014: 32 + 29 = 61
H2 2014: 79 + 128 = 207

Q1 2015 total: 42 + 19 + 15 = 76
Q2 2015 total: 19 + 19 + 5 = 43
Q3 2015 total: 22 + 32 + 15 = 69 (in 92 days)
Q4 2015 (so far): 16 + 6 + 11 = 33 (in 38 days)

H1 2015: 76 + 43 = 119 (in 181 days)
H2 2015 (so far): 38 + 38 + 26 = 102 (in 130 days)

"221 new live Supercharger stations in 311 days (in 2015). The average is more than 0.7106 per day (in 2015)". That looks like the going average these days. The average in 2014 was 0.7342 (= 268/365). And that still is extraordinary progress, although the average in 2015 (so far) is lower than the average in 2014.

 

[jerry33]

I think some 60s may have been delivered before it announced that all cars were built with the hardware, but the announcement I remember referred to all 60s. They said it was to maintain resale value, as the second owner may want to activate it, but I assume it was just to simplify the manufacturing and it would be almost certain that someone would pay for it eventually whether the first owner or not.

I took they announcement to mean that they started putting in the hardware in all 60s shortly before the announcement--not from day one. As the 40s were stopped before the announcement my guess was that they didn't have the hardware. Agreed that it was mainly to simplify manufacturing.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I took they announcement to mean that they started putting in the hardware in all 60s shortly before the announcement--not from day one. As the 40s were stopped before the announcement my guess was that they didn't have the hardware. Agreed that it was mainly to simplify manufacturing.

I recall a Model S40 that was for sale with Supercharging enabled. The owner didn't want to be identified because it wasn't supposed to have happened without paying for the 60 upgrade and he was afraid that Tesla would shut him down. My interpretation was that even the 40 kWh limited cars had the necessary hardware for Supercharging.

I expect that there are some S40 owners who had their cars upgraded to 60 + Supercharging who could verify this.

 

[Cottonwood]

100 North American Supercharger Sites This Year

With the opening of Greenville, SC, Tesla has opened 100 Supercharger Sites in North America this year. With 1.7 months left in 2015, this puts the rate of openings this year a little ahead of last year (2014) that had 102 North American Openings.

Source: Supercharge.Info