Tesla Supercharger network

[JakeP]

Why would you expect this number in 2013, let alone "halfway"? IIRC, in the Supercharger announcement Sept 24th 2012, the first number that large was promised for "within 2 years", which would be end of 2014.

I didn't say "expected", I said "hoped". To reiterate, I pointed out how amazed we all were with Tesla's concept, and I *wished* they would further amaze us with rapidly implementing the vision. In other words, I hoped they had under-promised and would over deliver. The numbers thus far seem to indicate the opposite. Even if you assumed a perfectly flat growth of 100 superchargers over 24 months starting in Oct 2012 (and I am not saying you must assume that, as any capital effort like this will almost certainly start slow and speed up with experience and proficiency), we should now see six months of installations times four sites per month, or twenty four sites. That is undeniably quite less than actually exist now, or even will exist at the end of "3-4 months from now", which will be end of July 2013, or nine months into the 24-month period promised for 100 sites, at which point we should see 36 sites (over 1/3 of the total), assuming linear growth. Now factor in the economics of just becoming profitable, a non-linear growth, and everything else...and I still wish we had more sites now, and wish we would have more than currently promised by the end of July.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Why would you expect this number in 2013, let alone "halfway"? IIRC, in the Supercharger announcement Sept 24th 2012, the first number that large was promised for "within 2 years", which would be end of 2014.

- - - Updated - - -



Just to check that we are on the same page: the year-end goal for 2013 was 12 locations in California.

Sorry I should have stated year-end 2014.

Larry

 

[tlo]

The supercharger network is a marketing expense to increase the value of the cars and drive more sales. Tesla is still very much supply-constrained, so they really don't need to be in a hurry to build out the network.

By promising US coast-to-coast and initial superchargers in Europe, they are already delivering a lot this year.

 

[Larry Chanin]

The supercharger network is a marketing expense to increase the value of the cars and drive more sales. Tesla is still very much supply-constrained, so they really don't need to be in a hurry to build out the network.

By promising US coast-to-coast and initial superchargers in Europe, they are already delivering a lot this year.

I agree that the Supercharger network can be viewed as a marketing expense and I agree that currently Tesla is supply-constrained. Nevertheless, it is very important to the ultimate viability of Tesla to be able to demonstrate, both to prospective buyers and investors, that it delivers on promises. You can't just say that you are going to build out the first phase of Supercharger network in two years and then say NEVERMIND its not important. :wink:

At the risk of stating the obvious, currently in states without Superchargers the Model S is comfortably an intra-city vehicle, but it is not comfortably an intra-state vehicle. Even as Tesla fans if we are honest with ourselves we must recognize that the Model S can not compete with conventional ICE vehicles for convenience when traveling across or between states. When we get beyond the early adopters, enthusiasts and their friends, this fact will greatly influence whether Tesla will be able to sustain demand close to its production capacity. Tesla can't just wait and see how things play out. Tesla has to get out front of the timely execution of the Supercharger network to be able to assure demand will be there when it is needed.

Larry

 

[Norbert]

I didn't say "expected", I said "hoped". To reiterate, I pointed out how amazed we all were with Tesla's concept, and I *wished* they would further amaze us with rapidly implementing the vision. In other words, I hoped they had under-promised and would over deliver. The numbers thus far seem to indicate the opposite. Even if you assumed a perfectly flat growth of 100 superchargers over 24 months starting in Oct 2012 (and I am not saying you must assume that, as any capital effort like this will almost certainly start slow and speed up with experience and proficiency), we should now see six months of installations times four sites per month, or twenty four sites. That is undeniably quite less than actually exist now, or even will exist at the end of "3-4 months from now", which will be end of July 2013, or nine months into the 24-month period promised for 100 sites, at which point we should see 36 sites (over 1/3 of the total), assuming linear growth. Now factor in the economics of just becoming profitable, a non-linear growth, and everything else...and I still wish we had more sites now, and wish we would have more than currently promised by the end of July.

If things go well, as I think they will, then I actually hope that in a few years there will be more locations than even the current "long-term" plan, as I think that Superchargers will be a very popular feature. However in the current situation, I understand that consolidating and cost-optimizing production (as well as the delivery process and service) needs to be a higher priority as long as resources are limited. This is changing right now (at 500/week deliveries this month), but I think it might take a few more months until resources become available throughout the company, on a larger scale. Nevertheless, I agree the number of installations should be larger, if it were possible.

 

[gregincal]

GeorgeB states the following on the 21-MAR-2013 Inside Tesla Blog:

"We will be adding Supercharger coverage in many areas over the next three to four months, installing our first Superchargers in the Pacific Northwest, Texas, Illinois, and Florida with additional coverage in the Northeast and California. We’re also expanding existing locations like Harris Ranch, where we’re adding five more Superchargers in the next month."

Color me skeptical, but a minimum of four new sites (hopefully "additional coverage in the Northeast and California" includes new sites as well, not just new units at existing sites) does not sound terribly aggressive for an end-of-July target, if Tesla is going to hit the goal set by Elon of LA to NY on Superchargers by year's end.

It's seems extremely unlikely that each of these areas is only getting one supercharger. A single supercharger isn't much use and they've never rolled out an isolated supercharger previously. I'd say a minimum of two superchargers per area is reasonable, and it's clear that "additional coverage" mean additional sites, because they specifically mention expanding existing locations separately. Realistically this announcement shows a target of at least 12-15 additional superchargers in the next 3-4 months.

 

[fengshui]

It's seems extremely unlikely that each of these areas is only getting one supercharger. A single supercharger isn't much use and they've never rolled out an isolated supercharger previously. I'd say a minimum of two superchargers per area is reasonable, and it's clear that "additional coverage" mean additional sites, because they specifically mention expanding existing locations separately. Realistically this announcement shows a target of at least 12-15 additional superchargers in the next 3-4 months.

Given that, has anyone spotted supercharger installations in-progress around the country? We now have targets in "Pacific Northwest, Texas, Illinois, and Florida" along with CA and the NorthEast.

 

[rolosrevenge]

I'm still hoping that Tesla will allow companies to buy their own super chargers. For certain locations, it could be a good selling point to have one or two.

 

[JakeP]

It's seems extremely unlikely that each of these areas is only getting one supercharger. A single supercharger isn't much use and they've never rolled out an isolated supercharger previously. I'd say a minimum of two superchargers per area is reasonable, and it's clear that "additional coverage" mean additional sites, because they specifically mention expanding existing locations separately. Realistically this announcement shows a target of at least 12-15 additional superchargers in the next 3-4 months.

And that is why I am only counting new sites. Additional sites are all that matters for coverage, the number of supercharger units at each site is all about expanding capacity at those sites. So I hope your interpretation of Northeast and California is correct, in that "additional coverage" means additional sites. Elon's comments regarding spacing of SCs during the whole NYT debacle would seem to support this. And that is also my interpretation of Tesla's target of 100 supercharger sites by end of 2014...there will undoubtedly be multiple SCs at each site, but that isn't how they are counting or measuring. When they say 100, they mean 100 sites.

So again, assuming a linear growth rate, we should have had 36 sites by end of July. In reality, we had six sites on the day of the Supercharging announcement, then two sites added on the East Coast some three months later. The next SC announcement we receive is this one, and I would have really *hoped* for something with a big "wow" factor, like "Superchargers in a dozen new states by Summertime". Instead we get three states TX, IL and FL, the Pacific NW, and more in NE and CA...but we have no idea, really, how many sites these will span. All we can assume is at least one new site in each of the aforementioned areas, and hope for more than that. And continue to hope that the rate of expansion increases much more rapidly after this somewhat stagnant initial growth in the first half-year (2 new sites from Oct-12 though Mar-13).

 

[sp4rk]

Given that, has anyone spotted supercharger installations in-progress around the country? We now have targets in "Pacific Northwest, Texas, Illinois, and Florida" along with CA and the NorthEast.

T'was one thing for those in California to spot them in a single corridor like 101, but nationally?

Needle. Haystack?

We've heard locally that one is going in ... in or near Bloomington, IL. So someone near there we could be on the lQQkQut.

Logically they would put one in in or NW of Milwaukee, WI. But so many towns ... so much ground!

And someone else suggested somewhere Southern Lake Michigan.

 

[Larry Chanin]

It's seems extremely unlikely that each of these areas is only getting one supercharger. A single supercharger isn't much use and they've never rolled out an isolated supercharger previously. I'd say a minimum of two superchargers per area is reasonable, and it's clear that "additional coverage" mean additional sites, because they specifically mention expanding existing locations separately. Realistically this announcement shows a target of at least 12-15 additional superchargers in the next 3-4 months.

All we can assume is at least one new site in each of the aforementioned areas, and hope for more than that.

Hi Jake,

I'm inclined to agree with Greg's take. While it is wise to temper our expectations, nevertheless in my view it is not reasonable to assume that Tesla would be silly enough to place a single site in each of these announced areas. Like Greg I believe that Supercharger expansion requires a minimum of a pair of sites to yield a reasonable travel distance.

Larry

 

[FlasherZ]

We've heard locally that one is going in ... in or near Bloomington, IL. So someone near there we could be on the lQQkQut.

The state is doing an overhaul of the shared rest area which serves both directions of I-55, south of Bloomington. It makes a great halfway point between St. Louis and Chicago, both good Model S density areas, and a frequent commute path. That's my guess.

 

[JakeP]

Hi Jake,

I'm inclined to agree with Greg's take. While it is wise to temper our expectations, nevertheless in my view it is not reasonable to assume that Tesla would be silly enough to place a single site in each of these announced areas. Like Greg I believe that Supercharger expansion requires a minimum of a pair of sites to yield a reasonable travel distance.

Larry

Maybe I completely misread Greg's statement, I thought he was referring to individual supercharger units at the same location (e.g., 5 at Harris Ranch). I would fully expect to see each state eventually get an SC between major cities within the state and in neighboring states. And indeed I hope each of the three recently mentioned states get that immediately, though that might be a long shot. Why can't they just add an image to the SC page on their site with "Coming Soon" dots, like they did for Service Centers? Would that be so hard? If they are within months or weeks of opening, you would think the leases and permits are already secured.

 

[yobigd20]

Yeah. The Model S will never pay for itself in fuel savings. This would apply more in 5-10 years when you can hopefully buy a Supercharge capable car in the $30-50k range.

maybe not entirely, but pretty damn close to it. I'm coming from a range rover, and I drive about 30,000 miles a year. Was getting 18/19mpg, and paying $4.00+/gallon for premium fuel. Assuming that the price of gas does not increase (which is 99.9% unlikely), that's about $65,000 in gas savings over 10 years. I now charge mostly at work, so the amount I pay in electricity at home is negligible. For a standard 85, thats almost the entire price of the car itself. Now, a somewhat more likely scenario, is that gas will continue to go up and up and up over the next ten years. Assuming, again a very unlikely scenario, that goes *only* goes up to $5.00/gallon on average, now we're up to $81,000 in savings over 10 years. We're getting pretty close to the car paying for itself now..... I haven't even factored in no oil changes, no more transmission failures, etc etc.... the Model S will in fact pay for itself. The more realistic scenario is that in 10 years, gas will probably be up to $7/$8/$9/gallon, perhaps even more. Many places in Europe pay over $10/gallon already. So it's only a matter of time before gas in U.S. reaches those levels. The more it continues to rise, the faster the Model S will pay for itself fully. It's inevitable actually, but obviously depends on how long you keep the car.

 

[aviators99]

The Model S is saving me money every single day. If I didn't buy it, I would have bought another $96k car, so it doesn't have to "pay for itself". My commute is 90 miles a day. I am saving $24-$30 per day, not to mention the road trips on the weekend.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I would fully expect to see each state eventually get an SC between major cities within the state and in neighboring states. And indeed I hope each of the three recently mentioned states get that immediately, though that might be a long shot.

Hi Jake,

If I were designing the Supercharger network roll-out I would start on both coasts as they have. Then I would start extending the network in a linear fashion starting in the areas of highest Model S density, as they have done. I would add another Supercharger site in the Northeast because the two existing sites are spaced too far apart and extend the existing California network North to the Pacific Northwest toward Washington state where there are lots of Model Ss.

Then I would start in Florida because that has the next highest Model S density and string them out along I-95 toward Georgia continuing North until the network meets the Northeast spur.

I would also start in Texas also because of the high concentration of Model S density and start building East and West to connect with the existing West and East Coast networks.

Finally I would do the same in Illinois building East and West to connect with the existing West and East Coast networks.

I would not put single Supercharger sites in Florida and Texas and Illinois, etc. I would attempt to place them in pairs along a routes that connects to an existing portion of the network.

Larry

 

[JakeP]

Larry, I definitely agree with the initial rollouts following owner density, that makes perfect sense. And of course the costal corridors were the obvious initial choices, and the East Coast will likely link FL to Maine before long, just as CA is reaching up into the Pacific NW, maybe into BC. The interesting question is how to then connect these islands of SC coverage. Logic would say to follow the main interstate routes, perhaps I-80 and/or I-70, or I-10 through TX to FL. Elon's LA to NY comments are interesting here, and don't imply a direct route, of course.

 

[Norbert]

If I were designing the Supercharger network roll-out I would start on both coasts as they have.

Just out of general curiosity: Why is it that the south of the US (Texas to Florida) is not as much considered a "coast"? I can't remember anyone talking about a "south coast". (And there seems little asking for a network along it.)

 

[Larry Chanin]

Just out of general curiosity: Why is it that the south of the US (Texas to Florida) is not as much considered a "coast"? I can't remember anyone talking about a "south coast". (And there seems little asking for a network along it.)

Hi Norbert,

I'm afraid I probably don't understand your point. Terminology aside, the Supercharger dots map shows several Supercharger dots across the "South Coast" along the Gulf of Mexico.

Larry

 

[Norbert]

Hi Norbert,

I'm afraid I probably don't understand your point. Terminology aside, the Supercharger dots map shows several Supercharger dots across the "South Coast" along the Gulf of Mexico.

Larry

It's really just a question, not a point. I'm wondering why the "South Coast" is not talked about as much as "East Coast" and "West Coast". After thinking about it a little, my first guess would be that the east and west coast are more important due to their ports being more important economically.