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

Would you pay $2k for supercharger access?

Would you pay $2k for Supercharger access?

  • Yes (I'm an MS owner or future MS owner)

    Votes: 80 35.9%
  • No (I'm an MS owner or future MS owner

    Votes: 16 7.2%
  • Yes (I'm a future M3 owner)

    Votes: 104 46.6%
  • No (I'm a future M3 owner)

    Votes: 23 10.3%

  • Total voters
    223
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I still favor a billing system for supercharger use with no upfront extra cost to enable it on Model 3s. You want it enabled on Model 3s to maintain their clear advantage over others, but you don't want added cost to a car that's primary focus, outside of being electric, is containing cost. Pay at the pump is not possible, and requires far too much hardware at the chargers that is not already there. A billing system, however, seems viable. You sign up for a billing account, and this gives you access to the supercharger system. Each use is then logged and you are later billed for it, kind of like a credit card. If you decide you don't want the service anymore, you can cancel your account.

This assumes the superchargers authenticate cars that plug in, which has been the going assumption for some time, and is required for a billing system to be viable.
 
This assumes the superchargers authenticate cars that plug in, which has been the going assumption for some time, and is required for a billing system to be viable.
Of course it authenticates connected cars. Not everybody has paid for SC access, and as it stands they check the plugged in vehicles to determine if it's allowed to charge. I should try that, but I assume that nothing will happen if I plug mine in. Also, it's my understanding that if I want to enable SC on my Model S, I can plug into a SC and call Tesla from the car and give them a credit card and they'll turn it on right there.
 
Of course it authenticates connected cars. Not everybody has paid for SC access, and as it stands they check the plugged in vehicles to determine if it's allowed to charge. I should try that, but I assume that nothing will happen if I plug mine in. Also, it's my understanding that if I want to enable SC on my Model S, I can plug into a SC and call Tesla from the car and give them a credit card and they'll turn it on right there.

Interesting. I wasn't aware it was all just a software thing. I thought maybe there was some hardware component as well that a service center would have to install.
 
It not only authenticates the car, Tesla is also keeping statistics on each car that plugs in and where they plug in. They are also matching that with your address to see if you're supercharging close to home, and they have sent letters to those who use them too much close to their home, reminding them they are for long distance travel only...

Supercharging letter from Tesla 8-13-2015

Canuck,

I respectfully disagree with your statement that those of us who received the dreaded e*mail from Tesla got it because they knew that we charged "too close to their home."

I was one of those fortunate souls who received the notification in August. I live in Fresno, and the nearest Supercharger to me (ignoring Harris Ranch, which is on the road to nowhere from our home) is in Manteca, 110 miles distant. I charged in Manteca six times from February to May whilst working out of town. (We do have a SC here in town that will commence construction quite soon, however.)

However, I took road trips to Milwaukee, Kootenay Lake and Los Angeles (returning via the Owens Valley) from mid-May to early August, and Supercharged almost exclusively the entire trip. I keep records of all my road trip charging, and I received 2,322 kWh from Superchargers on these three road trips. I charge exclusively at home; however I only drive about 200 miles per month when home.

While I agree that Tesla knows where, when and how much we utilize the Superchargers, I firmly believe that when they culled the data to determine the recipients, they did not bother to consider locations. They only determined a cutoff for total kWh, and assumed that anyone who exceeded that amount MUST be charging at their local, neighborhood Supercharger.

Maybe Tesla contemplated privacy issues for us owners, and did not want the authors of the program to know where we charge, so they did not make location data available to them for the purposes of selecting the recipients.
 
This assumes the superchargers authenticate cars that plug in, which has been the going assumption for some time, and is required for a billing system to be viable.

Well, from the efforts to understand the Supercharger communication bus we know that the very first digital data that the car passes to the Supercharger once the link is established is the car's VIN. I can't say for certain what the charger does with that information, but I'd assume it does something with it or Tesla wouldn't have set it up that way.
Walter
 
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.
It helps them build a network that's good enough for their Model S and soon Model X sold. It's not big enough for half a million Model 3 cars.


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.
It doesn't matter what the budget is called. In the end the money has to come from car sales. And I doubt Tesla will be able to go without marketing forever.
 
11+ car wait at Tejon Ranch AVOID IF YOU CAN!!!!!!!!

That's exactly the reason I think just a subscription based system does not work in the near future. Most people don't need it every day, but then you will have occasions like Christmas where everyone travels and visits family.

Agreed. Look at electricity network companies. Paying per kWh doesn't make sense when many people have solar, and while people who generate their own solar use less power they still have the same peak demand (in the evenings). That is why network companies are not keen to encourage any more solar - because they still need to build their network to cope with the peak.

This is similar - the system must be able to deal with the busiest time of the year. The one off, up-front charge makes it easier for Tesla to invest in this way.
 
The cars in the running to replace my Volt are the Next Gen Volt, the Bolt and of course the Model 3. I cancelled my X reservation because I moved into a house in the country built in 1923 with a garage that was meant for a Model T and the X would be over kill driving short distances on gravel roads. I am definitely committed to an EV. With regards to Super Charging, if they don't make it compulsory by rolling it into the MSRP, I would hope that there could always be an ala carte option for very casual use once or twice a year. $2k would be a steep price as an option for casual use and would price some people out of it.

Perhaps they could do a pre-pay option. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way but I didn't feel like reading through 9 pages.

Tesla is really going to have to step up there Super Charger infrastructure to accommodate, especially on peak travel days once the 3 starts shipping in large numbers.
 
Perhaps they could do a pre-pay option. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way but I didn't feel like reading through 9 pages.

I don't blame you, but to save the time - for the supercharger system to be successful, people need to be able to drive up and get a spot without waiting. The biggest problem is ensuring there is enough capacity at peak time (Friday nights/Sunday nights/holiday weekends etc). Someone who supercharges four times a year on Friday nights before long weekends, actually causes more of a demand on the network than someone who supercharges every Wednesday afternoon. This is why the "per session"/"per minute"/"per kWh" options are unlikely to be sustainable. Tesla needs the upfront revenue to build out the network to scale to the number of supercharger-enabled vehicles on the road.

Note - This has never been stated officially by Tesla, but speculated by members of this forum.
 
I don't blame you, but to save the time - for the supercharger system to be successful, people need to be able to drive up and get a spot without waiting. The biggest problem is ensuring there is enough capacity at peak time (Friday nights/Sunday nights/holiday weekends etc). Someone who supercharges four times a year on Friday nights before long weekends, actually causes more of a demand on the network than someone who supercharges every Wednesday afternoon. This is why the "per session"/"per minute"/"per kWh" options are unlikely to be sustainable. Tesla needs the upfront revenue to build out the network to scale to the number of supercharger-enabled vehicles on the road.

Note - This has never been stated officially by Tesla, but speculated by members of this forum.

To be honest, this will be Tesla's problem to figure out. If they truly believe that EV cars can be a replacement for ICE cars without compromise, they will have to find a way to make this work. When it comes to the S/X the base price is so high that 2k is a small percent, but with a car that is going to be 1/3rd less price, 2k is a lot of pre-paid electricity and it will be hard to convince Ma and Pa Kettle that 2k is a worthwhile expense, if they are part of the demographic Tesla is trying to capture.

This is clearly unchartered territory, but 30 years from now do you think we are going to have competing SuperCharging networks or will they evolve into a more ubiquitous network. I would bet Tesla would spin this off long before then.
 
With regards to Super Charging, if they don't make it compulsory by rolling it into the MSRP, I would hope that there could always be an ala carte option for very casual use once or twice a year. $2k would be a steep price as an option for casual use and would price some people out of it. Perhaps they could do a pre-pay option.

This is not a sustainable option. Imagine if you could pre-pay for the fire department or police... Um, I'll just pay for one fire in advance, here's my $100. :rolleyes: Saw an article on this subject recently where someone in the lower states had the option to not pay for fire department and when his house was on fire, offered to pay the $100 yearly fee right there and then, the fire marshal told him that if everyone did that, there'd be no fire department.

<RANT>The fact not paying for fire department was even an option strikes me as completely nonsensical and ridiculous, but of course there are always those that complain about the cost of government services, uh. </>

Pay up front makes sense as it gives Tesla the money to build and maintain infrastructure.
 
This is not a sustainable option. Imagine if you could pre-pay for the fire department or police... Um, I'll just pay for one fire in advance, here's my $100. :rolleyes: Saw an article on this subject recently where someone in the lower states had the option to not pay for fire department and when his house was on fire, offered to pay the $100 yearly fee right there and then, the fire marshal told him that if everyone did that, there'd be no fire department.

<RANT>The fact not paying for fire department was even an option strikes me as completely nonsensical and ridiculous, but of course there are always those that complain about the cost of government services, uh. </>

Pay up front makes sense as it gives Tesla the money to build and maintain infrastructure.

Well how the heck is any DC charging infrastructure getting built then since it is pretty much all pay as you go? I fail to see the connection between pre-paying for Super Charger use and the Fire Department. First of all, why are all the taxes we pay (property, county, local, state, etc) not enough to ensure that we can rely on the fire department when our house is on fire? That is not a good comparison.
This is not an easy argument as there are pro's and con's that are pretty rationale and logical. EM has already said M3 will have SC access. The question is will it be listed as a required feature, or will it automatically be absorbed into the MSRP. If it is rolled into the MSRP, that will be a huge marketing advantage that no other EV manufacture will be able to compete with.

Do we even know enough about the M3 as to wether there will be different battery options? I could see this being the logical solution that the larger battery would come with it standard. Who knows though, this is all hypothetical.
 
Well how the heck is any DC charging infrastructure getting built then since it is pretty much all pay as you go?

.... the key word there is 'sustainable'. There are basically 4 main sources of L3 charging.

- Tesla (funded by vehicle sale)
- Chargepoint (funded by host)
- Blink (pay as you go... now bankrupt and bought by Car Charging Group.... which is also bleeding $$$)
- Public (Funded by the Government.... which also partially funded Blink)

Of those the only one that attempted to fund the L3 chargers with a pay as you go method was blink... er Car Charging Group... which is now also spiraling into bankruptcy... to say that Teslas model for developing fast charging infrastructure has been the most successful might qualify as the understatement of the decade...

Car Charging Group... even after buying the Blink charging network for ~1% of its actual cost... still can't turn a profit let alone fund additional infrastructure. Selling electrons for EVs is simply a terrible, terrible business model.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fail to see the connection between pre-paying for Super Charger use and the Fire Department

Like I said, some places in the lower states require you to optionally pay for the local (to you) fire department. That would be like your proposed "pre-pay for some level of usage", namely, you aren't paying for the infrastructure up front, you would propose to pay only a small fee for limited usage. This level of funding if not taken up by the majority of owners (homes or Tesla's) could not possibly pay for the infrastructure. Those who would rather pay a fee when they need charging, or need a fire put out are not thinking about the bigger picture, namely, the need for massive total funding to built out the infrastructure for charging (and fire departments).

Whereas you imply that your local fire department is paid for via local taxes. Obviously this is the way Tesla pays for the supercharger infrastructure today, namely, everyone who owns a car gets it included and the infrastructure is built out for everyone no matter how many times they use the charging (just like anyone can have 20 fires at their house a year and not pay any more than someone who never has had a fire).

See?

- - - Updated - - -

Selling electrons for EVs is simply a terrible, terrible business model

+1 thanks for writing this reply, saved me the effort, good explanation!
 

Like so many things Tesla, there are a lot of people who seem to know it all. The fact is we do not know what Tesla will do since they have not revealed. Until then, it is all speculation and I was merely offering my opinion and hope. We can not use the sales Model of S/X IMO as a direct reflection of how the 3 will be marketed. Tesla is boxed into a particular price range with this vehicle and to have potentially up to $2k baked into the price of a vehicle with a much lower MSRP for a feature that many may not ever use is a risk. On the other hand, it is vital for the marketing of the car. Just like the Model S/X, a lot of the early adopters will have funded the R&D to make the successive generation of product more affordable. Why can the same not be said for the Super Charger. By the time the 3 comes out, a lot of the SC network hardware will have been funded and paid for. This could potentially open up to a pay per use depending on the cost. Am I saying .15 a kWh? No, but tell me $30-40 a pay per use charge up would not contribute to the infrastructure?
 
Am I saying .15 a kWh? No, but tell me $30-40 a pay per use charge up would not contribute to the infrastructure?
It could, but it would totally kill sales for the Model 3 because it will appear far more expensive to run than a gas car. Those who purchase a Model 3 are far more concerned with economy than those who purchased an S or X.