cpa
Active Member
No, not confirmed. But it looks suspiciously like one from the photographs of the construction site.
We need our local emissaries to check more frequently and more diligently.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Supercharger network
- Thread starter dsm363
- Start date
No, not confirmed. But it looks suspiciously like one from the photographs of the construction site.
We need our local emissaries to check more frequently and more diligently.
Tesla hits over 10,000 super chargers worldwide! I still don't get why other auto makers do not take Tesla up on using their network. Cars like the Bolt and I-PACE would be so much more appealing if they could use the Super Charger network even if they had to pay to use them.
Well the first automaker to be wise enough to get over these reasons, will have the best competitor to Tesla. Who wants to spend north of 30K or even worse 75K for a car that sucks for long distance travel? About the only case that would make any sense is something like a Rimac, but that is an extremely small niche to confine yourself to.
S100D
Member
You would not think it was appealing if you were on a trip and you pulled into a SuperCharger and could not charge because Chevrolet Nissan, and Jaguar EVs were charging at all of the chargers. I like it just the way we have it now, only Tesla cars can charge at the Superchargers.
Merrill
Merrill
I think this is a common misunderstanding. Using this this logic, we should also dread the Model 3 expansion. But, the network expands at the pace and scale of the cars that use it. And given, no other car manufacturer has the same access to batteries as Tesla, Tesla will have the lead time to expand the network as they see other participating manufactures build out their supply chain.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
They had their chance(s). Let the other manufacturers now fend for themselves. It's a race for remaining prime real estate as it is.
Besides which, Tesla still needs to demonstrate that it can effectively manage supply and demand at the top end of the curve. See Southern California, which routinely commands at least half of the busiest top 10 superchargers list - and California in general, which now has about 80% of that list at any given peak usage time. Solve California, and you solve the continent.
Orange County suffered first for years by having only a single SC. Now it is San Diego's turn to be woefully underserved. The first time was the first time. Hopefully there will not be a third.
Expansion into unserved areas is relatively straightforward by comparison - the mystifying failure to complete the I-10 corridor via Fort Stockton, Texas aside. Note that they're just 1 SC away from enabling Acapulco from Bar Harbor, Maine or anywhere else as long as you go through McAllen, Texas and/or thereabouts. It would be even more impressive if someone could find a Mexico car policy that covered US shop rate in excess of $50 and if the Tesla warranty wasn't voided if an American car is driven in Mexico (odd, given that Teslas are *shipped to* Mexico).
I saw a total of 4 Teslas between CA and WY during a recent trip from Los Angeles to South Dakota, 2 of which were at Rancho Cucamonga at 1 o'clock in the morning. I can't get 3 blocks without seeing 4 Teslas when at home. I get that a lot of the congestion is a California thing. But there are other SCs across the continent that do get impacted.
Am not so concerned about the Model 3. In the next 2 years, if 500,000 are produced, half are destined for the overseas markets. Of the remaining 250,000, 40% give or take are destined for California/Oregon/Washington. That's 100,000 cars. Over 2 years. Call it 4,000 cars/month. That's not a lot across 3 states. Note as well that 12,500 chargers are coming courtesy of the 2 largest CA utilities, and that doesn't include the $800M in Dieselgate money that's due CA over the next 20 years.
Again, when Tesla demonstrates that it can stay abreast of demand in California, then they'll have crossed a key threshold. I have noooo problem with the network remaining closed to other manufacturers until that day.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Except that's not the whole story. As we know, ~600 days ago, they had a permit application, which was allowed to wither and die (the culprit having been assumed to be local resistance). Since then, numerous other West Texas SCs have been hatched in spite of politics, local and otherwise.
Instead of relying upon one overwhelmed fellow based near Phoenix for further Texas expansion, the Supercharger Team has enabled a new fellow who is based in Houston. While not quite West Texas, at least he's in-state, and in a part of the country where face to face and local relationships matter, that can only help. This was part of the whole quadrupling of the team thing and of course they're not done yet.
The delay in execution has turned Fort Stockton, in my mind, into a Top-5 GET THIS DONE NOW challenge. I-10 remains the safest way to get from Florida to California year-round, relative to hanging a hard right at Houston into tornado and black ice country along I-40.
While I'm all for thinking outside the box and tilting at the occasional windmill (see West Texas above), here's the thing about what I'll call the Challenge of Coastal California: We haven't quite yet hit critical mass for the deployment of charging stations and networks. You get the impression that it's coming, but it ain't moving at maximum velocity. You don't see, for example, the same success on the part of AeroVironment in SoCal that they had along the Oregon Coast with their ChaDeMo/L2 installations at grocery and other locations including at least one Chevron gas station - for $20/month unlimited usage no less. I don't know what it's going to take to get to the tipping point hereabouts. Rumor has it that Dieselgate money has finally manifested itself in a first phase of 160 sites, 40ish of which have been confirmed. Well, okay, ,but what of the 12,500 chargers from the major utilities? Plus the Tesla buildout. That, collectively is a lot of real estate to lease and develop. If the other manufacturers want to jump into that morasse then more power to 'em, but I'm not sure (other than placing single L3/L2 couplets at their stealerships (see Nissan) for business hours-only usage) what value they'll be able to add.
Now, a partnership with the oil companies could have legs. Target the majority of properties that have the space for at least a couplet as referenced above and that's a good start. Those that have more space might opt *gasp* for a 4-station option. You'd think if there's an L2 charger 125 miles northwest of the Edmonton, Alberta SC (and there is), that a concerted effort could get a number of gas stations lit up in SoCal. Heresy, I know.
One point of amusement lately has been at the newest/flagship Costco in the South Bay (Lomita/Torrance). They've got maybe a dozen L2 chargers adjacent their food court toward the back of the building. They're never all full - even with ICEs. Across the parking lot would be the sizable gas station area - routinely with cars spilling out into the roadway blocking traffic, horns honking, the works.
All in good time.
S100D
Member
Mike we all know that as Model 3 deliveries ramp up that more Tesla's will be using the SuperChargers and Tesla will need to continue building more SCs and/or add more chargers at SCs that have high utilization. I did not say this in my first reply to you because I knew you were aware that more Model 3s means higher utilization at our current SCs. This is another reason that we do not want other car brands using our SCs.
I think the biggest problem is 2a.: their entire charging technology would have to be redesigned to be much more robust to handle the far greater power than their cars do today (or tomorrow!), and they’d have to share the infrastructure costs (and several companies have already said that charging stations are not their problem). But all the other points are true too.
In my mind, Aston Martin has always been the most likely automaker to join the Tesla Supercharger network, especially in Europe where the charge port is not an issue. They can afford to pay Tesla a per-car fee to join the network and they don't have enough volume to do anything on their own.
Tesla is an interesting company because it is strongly driven by its mission to catalyze sustainable transport and energy while at the same time needing like any other company to make enough capitol to survive and grow so as to accomplish that mission. Too many get into an us vs. them mentality when really we are all in it together. With this in mind, it just makes sense for Tesla to offer to partner with other auto makers building out charging infra structure (which btw they have already). Elon has said quite explicitly he thinks creating a walled elite garden is "lame".
What is tricky is Tesla has worked hard to create a no compromise vehicle to its customers by addressing major issues like charging infrastructure. As a result supply not demand has always been Tesla's limiting factor. While other companies have not because they do not have access to an adequate long distance charging network. I agree with others that if Tesla does partner with big auto it should do so not at the expense of its current and future customers and business. The challenge is for Tesla to figure out terms that help big auto transition into EV future in such way that both win. The pie is large enough for both big auto and Tesla to mass produce EVs. When this happens BEVs will no longer be these elite fringe vehicles, but more the norm thus accomplishing a more sustainable transportation sector.
However, the underlying obstacle that I believe prevents big auto from partnering with Tesla on the charging network is they just do not have their ducks in row to start selling high volume BEVs. Without the ability to yet get their hands on much larger quantities of battery cells and manufacture them into packs at a favorable rate so as to make reasonable margins on their sales of BEVs, there is no incentive for them to invest any more to leverage greater demand beyond fulfilling compliance numbers while maybe just testing the EV waters. This in why unfortunately, I believe for quite some time Tesla will have to go it alone on the super charger network.
I've been seeing you spout this FUD for years, and it's getting tiresome. You talk about it like it's a death sentence to stray any farther north than a dozen miles from the Mexico border. I just drove that in the first week of February this year on I-40, and it was over 80 degrees! Sure, more routes are always better to have, but I-40 doesn't seem like it's outlandishly more dangerous than I-10 as you continually claim.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
Your usual hyperbole aside, you might want to consider more coffee for that tiredness - because until I-10 is complete, you’ll continue to have the opportunity to read posts, mine included, about how it’s not fun to detour into tornado and black ice country when the optimal solution is a) obvious and b) 2 years late to the party.
P.S. It was 80F in Lusk, Wyoming 3 weeks ago and 35F in the Black Hills 2 days later. I threw snowballs at Lusk 4 years ago the same week. So what? Smart people reduce risk as a rule, and as a rule, risk is reduced via I-10 versus I-40. So simple for most of us.
ccutrer
Active Member
I have not once in my life detoured a road trip due to weather. Worst is being stuck in northern Arizona for an hour or two due to an accident blocking a two lane highway, or a 30 minute delay waiting for a chain check in Reno headed for Donner Pass (though the “delay” traveling I-80 across Nevada in blizzard conditions at 30mph was probably longer). Sure, all else being equal, you choose a less risky route. But you’re talking minuscule amounts of risk on any given day. My Nevada in a blizzard trip, for example, would have been better served by just delaying a day, rather than rerouting (we did neither, and accepted the risk). For the vast majority of the time, you choose your route based on travel time, and any particular waypoints you want to hit. Looking at CA to FL, yes you would default to I-10, cause it’s fastest. But a two hour (including additional charging) detour over a 38-40 hour trip (assuming no stops, even charging) is not a huge deal. Because at the moment you have interesting waypoints you just have to hit (charging, so you can actually make it!).
Is the current route ideal? No. Is it workable due to a minor caveat? Definitely.
You seem pretty ridiculous claiming that you don’t dare drive I-40 over I-10. A lot of the country are making the choice between I-70 or I-80. If they have a choice. Heaven help those poor souls that get I-90! Or the Canadians!
My hyperbole?
It is you who are claiming that tornadoes and black ice are a constant danger.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Must not be many smart people driving cars then (see Repo Man), because pretty much nobody drives on 10 through West Texas, at least in comparison to other routes. It is, rightfully, the last cross country highway Tesla is getting finished. Of course they have been pretty slow about it, but that's Tesla. Be happy you're not trying to do trans-Canada (which has even fewer people and is much further from completion).
Similar threads
- Poll
