He has said similar things in multiple places, but in the spaces call with GM, at about 8:10 in, he said:
Charging GM vehicles more, or requiring a subscription to get the same price, would be preferring Teslas, and not be an even playing field.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
He has said similar things in multiple places, but in the spaces call with GM, at about 8:10 in, he said:
Charging GM vehicles more, or requiring a subscription to get the same price, would be preferring Teslas, and not be an even playing field.
Etna
Member
Last week-end Tesla had a booth at the local electric car show here in Quebec with S, 3, X and Y showroom models through a partnership that has been going on for some time with Club Tesla Quebec, the official booth tenant. I was part of the staff along with fabulous Tesla sales and techs representatives, sharing my experience to visitors as a Model Y owner (all were blown away by the ability of talking to an owner rather than a seller). Most visitors came to the show to make a purchasing decision. Saw a few signing up for a Tesla on the spot.
One thing that struck me is that several visitors checked out the Tesla booth just as a matter of curiosity after just putting a deposit on a particular model of some other brand. They did not even consider Tesla since "they don't have any models available below a hundred grand", and they assumed waitlist was just as bad as anyone else. Having no waitlist was a shocker to most - one couple I talked to really wanted that Kia EV6 GT but it is a three year wait! "we could be dead by the time we get it" they told me. Three or four people I talked to were like wtf and went straight to ordering a Tesla right after they put a deposit elsewhere.
It's quite amazing how many people have no idea they can actually afford a Tesla and not die of old age before they can get one.
One thing that struck me is that several visitors checked out the Tesla booth just as a matter of curiosity after just putting a deposit on a particular model of some other brand. They did not even consider Tesla since "they don't have any models available below a hundred grand", and they assumed waitlist was just as bad as anyone else. Having no waitlist was a shocker to most - one couple I talked to really wanted that Kia EV6 GT but it is a three year wait! "we could be dead by the time we get it" they told me. Three or four people I talked to were like wtf and went straight to ordering a Tesla right after they put a deposit elsewhere.
It's quite amazing how many people have no idea they can actually afford a Tesla and not die of old age before they can get one.
OK, I am just weary of all the things people tell us that Elon said, «Elon said that partner OEM EV owners won't pay more than Tesla owners» (my emphasis) is not the same as «it will really be an even playing field».
I agree that it is a reasonable interpretation, but not what he actually said.
I’d guess that OEMs will also have to pay some, e.g. for API access or some other commitment (I know they are not EV owners so this is not against your point) - possibly adding to the business case. But this is so far pure speculation on my part…
Edit:Typo.
Last edited:
Here is the quote from RJ on their Q2 call:
So it isn't quite as clear as I remember, but it does sound like for Supercharging use that Rivian customers will pay Rivian and then Rivian will pay Tesla.
But charging more for non-Tesla owners would be "doing something to prefer Teslas" which he specifically said that they wouldn't do.
Probably only another 6 months until we actually get details. (When the adapter starts rolling out and the NACS partners have implemented the APIs to allow charging via their own apps.)
I think I made my point on «assumption-quoting» Elon (however likely the assumption may be.
So not something I particularily believe or want to defend in a discussion, but it could in theory be calculated how much of the network we have financed through purchasing Tesla cars.
That included would give a «level field» - even with different prices.
Elon sometimes chooses his wording with care, I would like us to heed what he actually says (and then present assumptions and interpretations as such where needed).
Initially, all of it..
Currently Tesla are aiming for a 10% profit margin on Supercharging, IMO that includes recovering capital costs.
They have also worked to fully optimise the solution and achieve the lowest capital costs possible,
It has also been likely that one day Supercharger revenue would fund the expansion of Supercharging, and it is also likely that charring revenues will one day exceed capital expenditure in any period.
The main reason why charging can be expensive to operate is low utilisation, opening up Supercharging helps reduce that.
Car found; To Be Delivered this coming Thursday, with FSD transferred, a referral from the SO that saved a few hundred, and a trade-in that $3k better than Car Max. Good times.
It's dark silver, not blue, but I can live with it.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Remember that Tesla promised access to only approx. 1/2 of all Superchargers, so presumably that would be mostly the under utilized ones.
I suspect the timing of this whole NACS deal had a lot to do with how big the SC network had become so that they could offer 1/2 of all Superchargers and have that be immediately profitable without significantly degrading Tesla owner experience while also being significantly useful to the non Tesla EVs.
1/2? They said more than 12,000 which is >2/3 of the North America ones (17.7k in Feb per Reuters). Possibly not the v1 or v2 ones due to needing CCS communication support.
What is the Reuters number? (It seems wrong.) Maybe it is just the US? Tesla had 21,350 stalls in North America back at the end of May. (Ford's announcement said V3 Superchargers, of which at that time there were 13,290 V3 stalls)
It looks like they have 23,659 stalls now, of which 15,586 of them are V3:
Above data is coming from Supercharge.info, here is one of their own charts:
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Your Tesla trade-in offer was better than CarMax? First I’ve heard of that!
Thanks @MP3Mike . Yeah, I just downloaded the supercharge.info into a spreadsheet, got the same 23,659 currently open stalls in North America that you have. I looked at the last three months, and Tesla installed 1,818 new stalls. So indeed, 12,000 stalls opened to non-Teslas in 1Q24 is indeed about half.
Last edited:
GhostSkater
Member
Interesting though from Rob on the 290 Wh/kg Cybercell
Drew said 10% improvement over V1, but we have no idea what was the latest Wh/kg. The 244 Wh/kg was from more than year ago, produced even longer before that, that's ages in Tesla times and many improvement could have been made in the meanwhile
So while unlikely, the 290 Wh/kg is definitely possible
A few more thoughts. Shame we didn't get any volumetric energy density improvement figures from drew, for Cybertruck this is a close second on the importance scale
DBE alone increases energy density by ~10%, previous 4680s were half DBE already, so let's call a 5% improvement due to that. The new lid design allows for a longer jelly roll, increase the ratio between active to inactive cell parts, bringing maybe another 5%
Only clear way that we can speculate with a bit of certainty is that they reduced the can thickness, so we need to see a teardown. That could be the portion of the 10% that is on the 4680s V1 already have and is on every Model Y
So my overall prediction is that the cell will be roughly the same weight at 355g, but 10% more energy density due to longer jelly roll, and another 10% due to less inactive components weight, resulting in 104 Wh per cell and 292 Wh/kg, this is roughly in line with a leak from long ago that gen 2 4680s would come out in 2023 and have a energy density of 304 Wh/kg
Circling back to Cybertruck, my previous speculation was that they could fit ~2500 cells in it for 500 miles of range, so we can either assume 20% less cells, or 20% more range, more range would certainly be nice
As always, just fun speculation
Drew said 10% improvement over V1, but we have no idea what was the latest Wh/kg. The 244 Wh/kg was from more than year ago, produced even longer before that, that's ages in Tesla times and many improvement could have been made in the meanwhile
So while unlikely, the 290 Wh/kg is definitely possible
A few more thoughts. Shame we didn't get any volumetric energy density improvement figures from drew, for Cybertruck this is a close second on the importance scale
DBE alone increases energy density by ~10%, previous 4680s were half DBE already, so let's call a 5% improvement due to that. The new lid design allows for a longer jelly roll, increase the ratio between active to inactive cell parts, bringing maybe another 5%
Only clear way that we can speculate with a bit of certainty is that they reduced the can thickness, so we need to see a teardown. That could be the portion of the 10% that is on the 4680s V1 already have and is on every Model Y
So my overall prediction is that the cell will be roughly the same weight at 355g, but 10% more energy density due to longer jelly roll, and another 10% due to less inactive components weight, resulting in 104 Wh per cell and 292 Wh/kg, this is roughly in line with a leak from long ago that gen 2 4680s would come out in 2023 and have a energy density of 304 Wh/kg
Circling back to Cybertruck, my previous speculation was that they could fit ~2500 cells in it for 500 miles of range, so we can either assume 20% less cells, or 20% more range, more range would certainly be nice
As always, just fun speculation
Yeah, looks like that was a US number.
Tesla to open U.S. charging network to rivals in $7.5 bln federal program
My issue was stating the announcement as 1/2 instead of a number, the lower bounds of which, based on growth projections, at a point in the future, would be 1/2.
Ford saying 'over 12k' in May is different from Tesla saying 'we'll only share half the posts on the future'.
Plus, the Ford announcement was after the 'over 7k (7.5k?)' general announcement from February/ March indicating a large increase in scope (beyond the Magic Dock equiped chargers?)
Tesla Already Beginning to Open U.S. Supercharger Network to Outside Brands
You misunderstood/misread my post. I didn’t say anything about Tesla announcing one half. I just said that that is roughly what it’ll be based on the 12,000 number of stations that had been announced. ANYWAYS, my thesis still stands that I think the SC network had to grow to this scale before it would be possible for Tesla to pull off the NACS announcements and deal they offered everyone.
Of course if EA hadn’t botched their rollout, it could have been a different story. But botch it they did.
Ah, yeah, that wasn't the way I interpreted "Remember that Tesla promised access to only approx. 1/2 of all Superchargers," I took the approx as part of Tesla's promise, not a derived value from what Tesla/ Ford announced.
To your point, yeah, the whole thing needed to be oversized for Tesla alone to still be user friendly with additional brands. Network also had to be large and robust enough to be an attractive add on for other OEMs.
Supercharger capacity is interesting due to local vs long distance requirement differences. More interstate posts can decrease overall utilization while not addressing intra-city capacity shortfalls. The federal funds for expansion will probably help a bunch with that.
Rob delves into survey results which really point to needing to advertise. It's surprising to me how unknowledgeable most people are about EVs in general and Tesla specifically. Clearly, we here on TMC are a small minority.
I know Farzed earlier pointed to this survey as evidence that price cuts were more important than advertising to sell more cars. But I side with Rob on this topic. It seems obvious to me some informational advertising would go a long way to opening up the market to many more potential buyers. I hope the folks at Tesla (and Elon in particular) watch this.
I know Farzed earlier pointed to this survey as evidence that price cuts were more important than advertising to sell more cars. But I side with Rob on this topic. It seems obvious to me some informational advertising would go a long way to opening up the market to many more potential buyers. I hope the folks at Tesla (and Elon in particular) watch this.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Tesla (http://TSLA.US) has decided to make and sell battery storage systems in India and has submitted a proposal to Indian officials seeking to get incentives to build the plant, according to people familiar with the matter.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Regardless of the general public's knowledge of EVs, Tesla is selling every car they can produce. Advertising in such a scenario will lead to longer waits for the car and people complaining about it.
Once Tesla gets production to the point that they have significantly more cars coming off the line than they have buyers, then, you will see Tesla ads. Not before.
GhostSkater
Member
The problem is that education takes time, people have thick heads, specially with something so political like EVs
Rob’s point is that from that survey, Tesla isn’t that far away from being demand limited if the public isn’t educated and results from pools like that change drastically
Maybe once it’s a problem Tesla will do the most awesome advertising campaign, but that seems like it could be under way for quite a while
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
