Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But, how infuriating will it be on a long trip, to pull up to a overcrowded Supercharger, exasperated by slow charging “others” and wait in queue, behind a VW, Audi or whatever? Tesla needs a solution that minimizes the impact to Tesla customers to not create an issue. To be honest, the minimal impact solution is NOT OBVIOUS TO ME.

How about this? Modify, add, or open up x% of the chargers at any location (based on utilization) to support non-Teslas. Paint them another color and/or change the shape (destination charger form factor?). Tesla owners can go to any stall. Non-Teslas only the different and designated ones. Impact to Tesla owners minimized. Awe factor for non-Tesla owners maximized.

Too simple?
 
I'd assume they will have an App (or just modify the Tesla App), then the person creates an account with Tesla. The App will start the charge and bill the credit card on the account. Should be pretty transparent.
Current superchargers are "dumb". The car initiates the charge (according to Ignineerix who has re-enabled paid supercharging on 1000s of salvage cars). So unless Tesla upgrades all of their superchargers to be "smart", the change will have to be in the 3rd party cars. Maybe they'll combine this with the rollout of the 300kw superchargers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AZRI11
The infrastructure bill includes $7.5B for EV charging infrastructure(for now at least).

One version of the bill included the following text:

INTEROPERABILITY.—Federal funds provided by this Act may not be used to construct any publicly available EVSE that has the ability to serve vehicle produced by only one vehicle manufacturer.

If the goal is to receive federal funds, I don’t think selling adapters will work. With the money from the bill Tesla could expand the Supercharger network for free and guarantee future revenue.

One solution is to add CCS stalls to current sites. The cost of adding a few stalls to current sites would be way lower than EA or EVGO building new sites from scratch. There are many ways to solve the payment issue. More cars are coming with Plug to Charge, and not all manufacturers have issues with EA chargers. I’m sure after a few software updates the Tesla CCS chargers will be more reliable than the competition.

This will also avoid the issue of a Tesla owner having to wait an hour while a Kona charges at 40kw.
 
I think it’s smart to open superchargers to help pay for them. SCs are significant sunk costs and likely are still being subsidized since IMO (monthly income) << (monthly cost) at most SCs…

The advertising is automatic for a slow charging vehicles because they will watch countless Tesla’s come and go in minutes while they charge…They will also either witness or experience perfect point of sale methods that all Tesla customers experience at SC and hate the other chargers even more.

But, how infuriating will it be on a long trip, to pull up to a overcrowded Supercharger, exasperated by slow charging “others” and wait in queue, behind a VW, Audi or whatever? Tesla needs a solution that minimizes the impact to Tesla customers to not create an issue. To be honest, the minimal impact solution is NOT OBVIOUS TO ME.
Just drove 16 hours with 2 kids and a giant dog...and the wife. About 3.5 of that was charging. Infuriating would be an understatement under those circumstances. Comically infuriating madness it would be.

So how about this.
1. Any supercharger already built belongs solely to Tesla and Tesla owners have sole usage rights. Therefore alleviating any “ I bought this vehicle under false pretenses...”
2. Tesla has right to continue to build out their own charging station should they wish, hence keeping a charging advantage if they choose.


With that said though, anyone shocked at this is not paying attention. It’s mission statement number one,the point of the master plan. Like it or not this will help transition the world off gas vehicles. That is the goal. Anyone here who thinks Elon cares less about that that the share price, is deluding themselves. He consistently acts in this way. He tries to achieve the goals he set out to do, and to be frank the share price is just a by product of that. Maximizing share price is not his goal. Weirdly that’s one of the reasons I invest. It’s a breath of fresh air. (Pun intended).
 
So my 2 cents on the Supercharger news...

Honestly, as a shareholder I am not happy. The network is one of Tesla's main competitive advantages and now they are giving it up for peanuts. Ask Big Oil why most of the majors have sold their gas stations to 3rd party operators, or went branded wholesale. Hint: you can't make money on selling gas. I mean sure the oil companies make money on selling crude and refining it, but if you operate a gas station, the convenience store is the one that makes money, not the pump. So for those who see some major revenue stream from this, I am not sure anything suggest this part would be different with electricity. And then there is the potential to annoy your own customers as they will now have to wait while some Hyundai Kona with a 39kwh battery is charging for an hour. (Not hating on the Kona, it's just an example of a car that charges super slow).

Hopefully Elon knows what he is doing.

Looks like Tesla is in the business of putting a station in every corner and WAWAs while monopolizing the entire charging infrastructure as EA couldn't get their crap together. Oh also I believe these stations may be subsidized by the good old US of A from the infrastructure bill.

CEO Elon Musk has said in the past that the Tesla Supercharger network is open to use by other electric vehicle manufacturers, but to use the system other companies would need to help invest in the expansion of the network. As of today, no other company is known to use the Supercharger network

I recall back in 2013 Elon stated something like; "It isn't the car makers who made the most money, it was those that supplied the fuel".

As things stand, it’s possible for those customers to believe they have made the best purchase. If allowed to rub shoulders with the Tesla community, that delusion evaporates and the maker of their vehicle has a disgruntled customer.

As a Tesla owner, I fear congestion of the superchargers by other cars.
As a TSLA owner, I fear a negative impact on the financials.
As a human being, I applaud the opening of the superchargers as it will accellarate the transition to sustainable transport.

The EU’s new green deal will throw massive amounts of money to anyone who installs fast chargers. I would be very surprised if Tesla would receive any of it if they kept their charging network closed.

Tesla seems to be on the verge of a massive supercharger buildout, at much lower costs than anybody else (prefab superchargers), with the ability to double the locations as grid storage, which will also be heavily supported by the new green deal.

I’m looking forward to all the other cars charging at superchargers at Ionity prices, it will be a license to print money.

Current superchargers are "dumb". The car initiates the charge (according to Ignineerix who has re-enabled paid supercharging on 1000s of salvage cars). So unless Tesla upgrades all of their superchargers to be "smart", the change will have to be in the 3rd party cars. Maybe they'll combine this with the rollout of the 300kw superchargers.
This info is probably not correct anymore for the CCS2 euro chargers. Remember that some non-Tesla’s could initially charge on them for free, and this hole was plugged by a software update of the superchargers.
 
I wish we know which of these analysts had the Bitcoin impairment factored in, in their estimates.
I am afraid the media will selectively choose the numbers, pick the consensus number without bitcoin impairment and compare to the EPS with bitcoin impairment.
@The Accountant If that prior tax, loss related adjustment* is done this quarter, doesn’t that works as offsetting the bitcoin impairment?

It is very likely you are having to answer this question multiple times. Sorry about that.
What are the odds that the adjustment will be made this quarter? Can it be done across multiple quarters, or only once ever?

I am still wondering why EM gave credit to Zach in the tweet when he said Tesla has Daimond 🙌

*not able to recollect the term.

@Artful Dodger
 
The adapters could include a 4 foot cable. This isn't rocket science.
… it might be. Let’s say an extension cord cuts the peak charge rate in half by doubling the length of the wire and adding an electrical connection.

Advancement on charge rates stops and the extension cords are perpetually stolen.

Not worth the trouble.
Sabotaged mission.
ICE celebrates.

350,000 Watts divided by 400 Volts is 875 Amps? Did I do the math right?
 
Look at his sales numbers. I think I saw that he only gave quarterly numbers yet always referred to them as year to date numbers.
Am I right about this? I tried to write him but saw no email address.
The Car And Driver numbers at least are USA-only (or perhaps inc Canada, I am unsure), and are 6-month YTD, i.e. Q1+Q2. The Car And Driver text seems fairly clear that they are Q1+Q2 when I read the text and look at what we know of sales data. For sure we can see that they cannot be global numbers by comparing them with Tesla Q2 P&D numbers which are 382,140 for Q1+Q2 for 3/Y vs the 127,939 for the 3/Y shown here. Anyway here are the Car And Driver numbers in a table. The Teslarati article is best ignored.

Capture.JPG
 
The infrastructure bill includes $7.5B for EV charging infrastructure(for now at least).

One version of the bill included the following text:

INTEROPERABILITY.—Federal funds provided by this Act may not be used to construct any publicly available EVSE that has the ability to serve vehicle produced by only one vehicle manufacturer.

If the goal is to receive federal funds, I don’t think selling adapters will work. With the money from the bill Tesla could expand the Supercharger network for free and guarantee future revenue.

One solution is to add CCS stalls to current sites. The cost of adding a few stalls to current sites would be way lower than EA or EVGO building new sites from scratch. There are many ways to solve the payment issue. More cars are coming with Plug to Charge, and not all manufacturers have issues with EA chargers. I’m sure after a few software updates the Tesla CCS chargers will be more reliable than the competition.

This will also avoid the issue of a Tesla owner having to wait an hour while a Kona charges at 40kw.

If the funding for a ccs stall is a fixed sum higher than the actual cost what's to hinder somewhat corrupt companies (read, all the other ones) to build a million stalls in say Delaware or whatever state decides to charge no taxes or other fees, while they will build none in say California?.

If the funding is not fixed Tesla would only get a proportional amount at each station depending on how many Tesla stalls there are and how many ccs is built. While that could get some of the fixed costs like the infrastructure to get electricity to the site to be included in the funding I'm not sure how they would do that math for already existing stations.

The only way for Tesla to really profit seems to be that they can build the ccs stalls for less than the funding. Which taxpayers shouldn't like. If it costs more than the funding there's not really much of a point for Tesla, at least financially.

To me this makes it more likely that they are planning a solution that lets others use the existing stalls.

How about this. If the bill says they will give $50.000 to any ccs stall opened after January 1. On January 1 Tesla does some software update that allows others to use the Tesla stalls and have instantly opened 10,000 or so ccs stalls.

That's $50,000 (or whatever number) x 10,0000 = 500,000,000 without doing much.

Actually this should end in some kind of benefit like this for Tesla. Otherwise what's the point of opening up existing stalls?

If this isn't allowed they should then open a second network instead. For all future stalls. Called Tesla + or something. Let the funding pay for that network and other cars would only have access to stalls on the Tesla + network.
 
Last edited:
The infrastructure bill includes $7.5B for EV charging infrastructure(for now at least).

One version of the bill included the following text:

INTEROPERABILITY.—Federal funds provided by this Act may not be used to construct any publicly available EVSE that has the ability to serve vehicle produced by only one vehicle manufacturer.

Then the simple solution is to make a deal with Bollinger Motors. Or Mazda.
 
You might be on to something.

I just listened to yesterday's Tesla Daily podcast, where Rob was going through some of last weekend's rumors regarding Cybertruck, opening superchargers to OEMs, etc. He said at at about 8.22: "the German brands might also buy the internal chargers from Tesla for new models, which, I could definitely see being the case if they do tie into the Supercharger network."

Again, this is just rumor/speculation at this point, but I could see this as being perhaps a decent solution for Tesla if the German government is going to require Tesla to open up its Superchargers in Germany. I could see Tesla being open to this as it would force German brands to buy Tesla's hardware if they want to use the charging network. Hard to imagine Old Auto agreeing to this, at least from an ego point of view, but they may not have a choice if Tesla says, "OK, fine, we'll open our network. But you guys will have to install our on-board chargers for this to work safely and with our payment system."

Anyway, I think it would be one of the fairest and safest ways for Old Auto to tap into Tesla's existing charging network: force them into installing Tesla on-board chargers on at least some of their new EVs going forward, at least the ones marketed as long-distance travelers.

Would also bring a whole new meaning to "hybrid" EV, haha. Think: "The all-new Mustang Mach-E, with Tesla charger! Only at your nearest Ford dealer!"

Superchargers output DC with a voltage and dynamic current limit specified by the vehicle. The vehicle side only needs a set of contactors to connect the charge port and pack along with a module to handle communications. No high current or high voltage parts needed in the module itself.
This module could easily be made with standard communication interfaces to the vehicle (BMS control of charge rate) and contactor control lines. With a unique ID programmed in, billing would be automatic.
This saves Tesla a metric crap ton of headache by pushing all the OEM interfaces to a standard API inside the car systems and allows them full control over the Supercharger to vehicle interface (including sw updates).
In a well integrated system, it would also push Tesla to support the existing standards (one module to charge port), which they do anyway, but would need 3rd party EVSE compatibility verification, unless they only officially support Tesla Wall Connectors (more revenue).

INTEROPERABILITY.—Federal funds provided by this Act may not be used to construct any publicly available EVSE that has the ability to serve vehicle produced by only one vehicle manufacturer.
Ability to only serve one type??? That could spply to any system that has the ability to have its software updated or connector changed...

Investor Engineering Discussions
 
With that said though, anyone shocked at this is not paying attention. It’s mission statement number one,the point of the master plan.
What percentage of Tesla owners do you think read elons master plan? Most people just buy the car they like the look and sound of, and the specs. They don't read the company mission statement. If a Tesla owner tells me they feel cheated that suddenly 2 years after purchase their once often-empty supercharger location has queues full of cheaper cars, I would agree with them.

I don't think that will happen, as I expect charger expansion to be rapid, and no ICE manufacturer will want to allow it, but I wouldn't blame a tesla owner being angry if they did. As a UK owner of a model S, it *is* annoying that the nearest supercharger to me is CCS only, and my 2015 model S cannot use it.
 
Superchargers output DC with a voltage and dynamic current limit specified by the vehicle. The vehicle side only needs a set of contactors to connect the charge port and pack along with a module to handle communications. No high current or high voltage parts needed in the module itself.
This module could easily be made with standard communication interfaces to the vehicle (BMS control of charge rate) and contactor control lines. With a unique ID programmed in, billing would be automatic.
This saves Tesla a metric crap ton of headache by pushing all the OEM interfaces to a standard API inside the car systems and allows them full control over the Supercharger to vehicle interface (including sw updates).
In a well integrated system, it would also push Tesla to support the existing standards (one module to charge port), which they do anyway, but would need 3rd party EVSE compatibility verification, unless they only officially support Tesla Wall Connectors (more revenue).


Ability to only serve one type??? That could spply to any system that has the ability to have its software updated or connector changed...

Investor Engineering Discussions
‪Will the plan involve changing both sides of all existing Tesla connectors to SAE standard as infrastructure improvement?‬
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhrivnak