Would you pay $2k for supercharger access?

[Curt]

You left out the option I need:

Yes, I would pay significantly more than $2000 for supercharger access. I'm a Roadster owner.

 

[dgpcolorado]

The supercharger network is one of the biggest selling points for Tesla and when you finally start comparing cars like the Bolt to the Model 3 it's going to be the difference in 90% of the purchases going to Tesla instead of the Bolt or another comparable EV. So putting a price tag on it actually makes people think about the lack of value $2000 for supercharging is. $2000 will buy you 800 gallons of gasoline and let you drive 24,000 miles at 30MPG. When you do the math it's a horrible deal.

But if the Tesla is $35k and the BMW EV is $33k your definitely going go buy the Tesla because it also includes the supercharger network.

My sense is that relatively few people do those calculations. Regardless, I drive an EV in order to avoid burning oil to get around, not to save money (it isn't remotely cost-effective for me); the "fun" aspect is a bonus. Perhaps some other potential EV buyers will feel the same way about paying extra for Supercharging. I don't know.

 

[winfield100]

You left out the option I need:

Yes, I would pay significantly more than $2000 for supercharger access. I'm a Roadster owner.

hey Curt, glad you are OK. like the look of your ?2nd? Roadster serioulsy regretting my crippleware VOLT, as also does wife. both agree mistake it was. counted over 42 tesla @ gude drive sate end of Sept. bunch of shrink wrapped delivered today also. busy busy tyhere

 

[Lonnie123]

The supercharger network is one of the biggest selling points for Tesla and when you finally start comparing cars like the Bolt to the Model 3 it's going to be the difference in 90% of the purchases going to Tesla instead of the Bolt or another comparable EV. So putting a price tag on it actually makes people think about the lack of value $2000 for supercharging is. $2000 will buy you 800 gallons of gasoline and let you drive 24,000 miles at 30MPG. When you do the math it's a horrible deal.

But if the Tesla is $35k and the BMW EV is $33k your definitely going go buy the Tesla because it also includes the supercharger network.

Exactly my thoughts. The supercharger makes the car actually usable as a Primary/Only car... Its why the Volt is even on the radar for some people. It makes things like day trips and road trips possible whereas the Bolt will put you in a 100 mile radius at most (assuming it actually gets 200 miles of real world range)_

I've thought about it like this... Would I buy the Model 3 for $37K versus $35k? Most likely, yes. The difference is minimal, but the benefit provided to the driver is huge. Make or Break kind of huge, really.

 

[Spidy]

I highly doubt that the $35k base Model 3 will include unlimited free Supercharging. The decisive factor has little to do with marginal electricity costs, and much more to do with overcrowding of the supercharger stations.

If I were Elon, I would offer two options for the base $35k Model 3:

1. Additional $2k upfront; unlimited supercharging for life. (the Model S60 approach.)
2. Pay-as-you-go supercharging, at $0.20 / minute.

The problem is that option two does not fix the overcrowding. Most of the time we hear about this is during peak demand e.g. holidays.

The only way to have enough Superchargers available at all time is to make people invest in them when they buy the car. Otherwise you have a 4th of July and a dozen Model 3 owners hogging the charging slot paying their $5 for one of the handful long distance trips they make every year.

 

[Ben W]

That idea might be too close to charging per kWh to pass muster in many states, unfortunately.

I've never understood this restriction. But in those situations, I suppose the slower charging could essentially be considered a "congestion tax", encouraging drivers to plan their charging for off-peak. This will particularly help for local charging, where people have quite a bit more flexibility when to charge.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that option two does not fix the overcrowding. Most of the time we hear about this is during peak demand e.g. holidays.

The only way to have enough Superchargers available at all time is to make people invest in them when they buy the car. Otherwise you have a 4th of July and a dozen Model 3 owners hogging the charging slot paying their $5 for one of the handful long distance trips they make every year.

I disagree. Charging by the minute would greatly reduce the incidence of people trickle-charging to 100%, or cars left plugged in after they're done charging, so the throughput of cars would be much higher. The current unlimited model encourages these inefficient behaviors. E.g., if you need a 20-minute charge but you're stopping for an hour for dinner; most people would now just leave their car plugged in the entire time, trickle-charging all the way up to 90% if not 100%. If you're paying by the minute, you probably wouldn't do this. So sure, there will be somewhat more Model 3's stopping for charges, but the charges would be much quicker; there would be a lot less supercharger abuse and hogging.

Obviously Tesla has the data and statistics for current supercharger use patterns and occupancy, so they're in a better position to gauge how much there would be to be gained by incentivizing proper charging. (I.e.; charge just as much as you need to get where you're going.) I expect my own behavior would be fairly different if I were paying by the minute, and I don't consider myself a supercharger abuser. The current brute-force approach (unlimited un-metered, encouraging longer charging stops and requiring more superchargers to handle the fleet) really goes against Tesla's ethos of efficiency in my view, especially when scaled up to millions of vehicles. It also substantially diminishes the perceived value of the $35k base model car, if pay-as-you-go is not an option, and $2k extra were required for any supercharger access it all.

That said, by all means they should also continue to offer the $2k unlimited model, and/or roll it into the price of higher-trim Model 3's. I think having both choices would give Tesla (and users) the best of all worlds.

 

[gregincal]

The problem is that option two does not fix the overcrowding. Most of the time we hear about this is during peak demand e.g. holidays.

The only way to have enough Superchargers available at all time is to make people invest in them when they buy the car. Otherwise you have a 4th of July and a dozen Model 3 owners hogging the charging slot paying their $5 for one of the handful long distance trips they make every year.

We're not talking about some third party company that has to fund superchargers with what they charge. Tesla does not in any way whatsoever currently collect $2000 per car sale and use that to build superchargers. Tesla simply decides how much to invest in supercharger construction based on a number of factors and the funds come from a totally different place on the balance sheet unconnected to car sales (it comes from the marketing budget). The charge we are talking about is to increase efficient use of superchargers, not fund their construction.

 

[MiamiNole]

I disagree. Charging by the minute would greatly reduce the incidence of people trickle-charging to 100%, or cars left plugged in after they're done charging, so the throughput of cars would be much higher. The current unlimited model encourages these inefficient behaviors. E.g., if you need a 20-minute charge but you're stopping for an hour for dinner; most people would now just leave their car plugged in the entire time, trickle-charging all the way up to 90% if not 100%. If you're paying by the minute, you probably wouldn't do this. So sure, there will be somewhat more Model 3's stopping for charges, but the charges would be much quicker; there would be a lot less supercharger abuse and hogging.

Reading this comment made me think about something. Part of Tesla's marketing of its SC network is that during road trips, you can stop at a SC and grab lunch (or dinner) while your car charges. In fact, I've read that retail and dining options are part of what Tesla considers when selecting SC locations. Wouldn't charging per minute explicitly go against that marketing strategy? Reading the comment made me think about my trips to 3 different Tesla showrooms and hearing the same marketing pitch about the SC network. Not saying that their strategy can't or won't change, but just wanted to add that to the discussion.

 

[cpa]

Reading this comment made me think about something. Part of Tesla's marketing of its SC network is that during road trips, you can stop at a SC and grab lunch (or dinner) while your car charges. In fact, I've read that retail and dining options are part of what Tesla considers when selecting SC locations. Wouldn't charging per minute explicitly go against that marketing strategy? Reading the comment made me think about my trips to 3 different Tesla showrooms and hearing the same marketing pitch about the SC network. Not saying that their strategy can't or won't change, but just wanted to add that to the discussion.

You make a valid point. No one on a road trip wants to be checking his watch during lunch or dinner or herding up his kids. Moreover, weather and road conditions can play heavily into the amount of charge one needs. A 145-mile leg in 80-degree weather with no wind will use a lot less energy than when it is 26 degrees and snowing lightly with a 15 MPH headwind.

I would submit that a large number of Model 3 buyers will not be well-versed in the peculiarities with electric vehicle energy use. To charge by the minute would put Tesla in an untenable position: If the driver charges too long, he might be paying for electricity that he could have gotten free at his destination or at a much lower price at home. If he charges too little, he runs the risk of running out of power.

As has been said time and again on these forums, simplicity is best. Free is free. That is simple. There will always be those who choose to thumb their nose at others, and no amount of charging by the minute will change their behavior.

Perhaps a more elegant solution down the road would be to have the ability for another user to remove the charge cable when the first vehicle has reached its level. This would entail redesigning the parking arrangement so access could be pull in from one direction and back in from the other. Tesla could design a "Supercharger app" that dials into each SC location to show a display of all cars that are currently plugged in. If a stall shows "green," that car has finished charging, and by depressing the stall picture on the phone app, the charging cable can be removed from the first car and then placed into yours.

Probably a silly idea

 

[Ben W]

Reading this comment made me think about something. Part of Tesla's marketing of its SC network is that during road trips, you can stop at a SC and grab lunch (or dinner) while your car charges. In fact, I've read that retail and dining options are part of what Tesla considers when selecting SC locations. Wouldn't charging per minute explicitly go against that marketing strategy? Reading the comment made me think about my trips to 3 different Tesla showrooms and hearing the same marketing pitch about the SC network. Not saying that their strategy can't or won't change, but just wanted to add that to the discussion.

It's an interesting point. But in a way, I think the point of their pitch is actually the reverse of this. Their lunch/dinner pitch was intended to psychologically minimize the still perceived painfulness of the slow charging process (relative to gasoline), NOT to extol the convenience of not having to come back and move the car. Sometimes you really do need to charge for an hour, sure. But with superchargers getting more common, and at closer-spaced intervals, these cases will diminish. Incentivizing the user to unplug the car when it's ready, rather than letting it sit there trickling up to 100%, is what the time-based system is about. It's rarely THAT much of a hassle to run out and move the car; besides, it's the polite thing to do. For those who don't want even that little bit of hassle, they can avoid it entirely with the $2k upfront option. (Which will probably be rolled into the cost of the luxury trim levels.) The pay-as-you-go is a choice; buyers are saving a lot of money upfront by choosing the possibility of a little bit of hassle.

All of these scenarios will once again change drastically once the cars have the autonomous capability to unplug and re-park themselves. But there will probably be a few critical years in between, and it will be interesting to see which solution Tesla chooses.

 

[electracity]

The problem is that option two does not fix the overcrowding. Most of the time we hear about this is during peak demand e.g. holidays.

The only way to have enough Superchargers available at all time is to make people invest in them when they buy the car. Otherwise you have a 4th of July and a dozen Model 3 owners hogging the charging slot paying their $5 for one of the handful long distance trips they make every year.

That is a good point, and probably a big future issue for Tesla.

I'm mostly worried about the empty beer cans and big gulp cups the M3 owners will leave scattered over the supercharger sites.

 

[cschock]

I voted no based on some quick numbers. Assuming $0.12/kWh at home, $2000 would buy me over 16000 kWh of electricity. That's enough to travel over 90,000 km (using the 70D 385km/charge estimate). I don't expect to put on that distance using the supercharger network.

While it would be nice to not worry about paying, I think it would be cheaper to just pay for the superchargers as I need them.

Somebody correct me if my math is wrong.

This is essentially why I voted no (and we plan to get a Model III in addition to our Model S when it comes out.) We haven't used the superchargers enough for it to be worth much (8 times in 2.5 years) and I don't see that changing too much based on where we live and where we tend to travel. So for us, paying for the superchargers would be economically silly. I was happy to do it as part of our Model S purchase, but I can't see any reason for it with a second car.

 

[EVNow]

While it would be nice to not worry about paying, I think it would be cheaper to just pay for the superchargers as I need them.

In general with QC - pay per charge would have to be ridiculously expensive to make it work. The infrastructure and demand charge is too high to allow for profitable QC operation at anywhere near $0.12/kWh. Even L2 charges are more like $0.25/kWh here.

 

[ImEric]

I sincerely hope that they bring back the "Pay up front" option from the MS60 (or that it's included in the price, like the MS70 and up) because I like the idea of driving up and plugging in, and I'm more than willing to pay for that convenience. However, with the size of the market for the 3, I could see Tesla beginning to institute a pay-as-you-go method, or even a pay-up-front method of charging. Tesla's really the only company that could do this reasonably well, since the cars are so interconnected with the company. You could easily add money to your account before a road trip, and then deduct from your account for each watt-hour you pull from the system. I'll be happy with whichever method Tesla decides to go with, because I will definitely want access to the supercharge network.

Epiphany: Here's what I think they should do: $2000.00 for supercharger access, with an account credit of $1500.00 on your pay-before-you-go account, if purchased at the time of the car. $2000.00 for access to the network, with $1000.00 credit if you purchase after taking delivery of the car. This would keep in line with Tesla's tradition of charging an extra $500.00 for access to the SC network if you purchase after taking delivery of the car. It would also allow people to drive for a REALLY long time without thinking about the cost of recharging because you could drive about 45k miles or more before you spend all of your $1000.00 worth of electrons. However, it might start to limit Tesla's local-charger nuisance as consumers would no longer view the superchargers as "free," but rather as start viewing them as "pre-paid," which is what they actually are anyway.

I could even see this as a way to cement brand-loyalty since if you sell your M3 and buy another one, you could keep your remaining... let's say $800.00 worth of SC credit, but if you switched to a Bolt [then you obviously make poor decisions and this post isn't for you], then those $800.00 worth of credits would be lost. I guess that there could be a system by which you could transfer your credits to another user or something...

 

[Soolim]

There will be a charge for access, not just energy cost. So not the total $2000 is for kWh.

I voted no based on some quick numbers. Assuming $0.12/kWh at home, $2000 would buy me over 16000 kWh of electricity. That's enough to travel over 90,000 km (using the 70D 385km/charge estimate). I don't expect to put on that distance using the supercharger network.

While it would be nice to not worry about paying, I think it would be cheaper to just pay for the superchargers as I need them.

Somebody correct me if my math is wrong.

 

[art]

pay as you go is the only way to go. The auto is so personal and used in so many different ways. I want to use it for four months out of the year and when I'm home for the summer months I don't need it. The way tesla has it now helps them build the system. Let us new owners from the model 3 on pay for the installation of card payments, and ongoing supper chargers and paying up front.

 

[nwdiver]

I agree that pay as you go would be great from an end user perspective... but since the main cost of charging infrastructure isn't the product, it's the capital... pay as you go is very unlikely to be viable.

 

[McHoffa]

I'd pay it, unless I end up getting a MS for myself (currently thinking M3 loaded or 70D for myself and low end M3 for wife). It's not about cost, but convenience. We'll end up using whichever one I get for long distance travel and I can't imagine doing that without access to superchargers. I'd prefer M3 owners having to pay a chunk for access simple so it keeps those that don't need it from hogging the stations. I'd only purchase it on mine.

 

[gregincal]

I agree that pay as you go would be great from an end user perspective... but since the main cost of charging infrastructure isn't the product, it's the capital... pay as you go is very unlikely to be viable.

Of course it would be viable. They don't pay for supercharger construction from those funds and right now they charge nothing. If I remember correctly supercharger construction is part of the marketing budget.

 

[jerry33]

I can't think of any good reason not to pay the $2K (or have it included in the purchase of the car as a hidden item). 1. It creates a network of chargers. 2. It saves the hassle of paying a monthly bill. 3. It saves the hassle of carrying a card. So it's not just about the amount of electricity used, it's about convenience.